Fortunately, Idlewild has enough foliage and elevation variance to actually have forced range approach shots designed into the layout. It still doesn't mean the course shouldn't have at least 6-7 par 3 holes that are twoable. Disc golf on ball golf layouts is where par 65+ layouts run the risk of becoming driving ranges with shot balance out of whack and power being over valued versus having a variety of approach shot challenges.

Fortunately, Idlewild has enough foliage and elevation variance to actually have forced range approach shots designed into the layout. It still doesn't mean the course shouldn't have at least 6-7 par 3 holes that are twoable. Disc golf on ball golf layouts is where par 65+ layouts run the risk of becoming driving ranges with shot balance out of whack and power being over valued versus having a variety of approach shot challenges.



why should any course have x amount of par 3s? were the mathematical design models made for disc golf course designers & players or were disc golf course designers & players made for the design models? :p

that said, at Idlewild shorts 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 17 are twoable. at the longs: 4, 7, 9, 12, and 17.

I don't believe designers who designed par 70 plus disc golf courses were necessarily paying attention to the elements and nature of disc golf but were knee jerking against exisiting par 3 designs in our sport to desperately emulate ball golf because "it's ball golf and it must be good." I can understand the pent up desire to make longer courses after so many years of pitch and putt. However, those of us who have actually studied the parameters of disc golf versus ball golf aren't locked into assuming the ball golf model is appropriate for disc golf. Harold could have made Winthrop a brutal par 72 design for the best players in the world but recognized that that model doesn't embrace the elements that are different between the sports.

I don't believe designers who designed par 70 plus disc golf courses were necessarily paying attention to the elements and nature of disc golf



please be more explicit what you mean by the elements and nature of disc golf. also, are you talking about playing disc golf on ball golf courses -- or are you suggesting that in your opinion all par (SSA?) 70 and higher courses are bad by default? :confused:

We've already been thru all this in detail in these threads. Go back and check it out. And yes, unless courses over par 68 still have 6-7 par 3 holes, they go beyond the bounds of embracing the elements unique to disc golf versus ball golf, especially those on wide open terrain like most ball golf courses.

However, those of us who have actually studied the parameters of disc golf versus ball golf aren't locked into assuming the ball golf model is appropriate for disc golf.


Some of us aren't locked into the assumption that a great disc golf course must have at least 6-7 par 3's. That is an opinion. My opinion is to use the land in the way that makes the best possible championship disc golf course in the par range of 62-72. When surveying a piece of land, I'll identify the best "green" locations and then look for the best spots to approach those locations. Sometimes the best spots are small, AKA a "tee", and sometimes they are from a "fairway". I've got a wacky notion that if I spend quality time walking a property and listening to what the land tells me, the overall course concept and approximate par comes to me.

Chuck,
I found your Highbridge DVD very professional and enjoyable. I'm very much looking forward to playing up there at some point. From what I've seen, our course design ideals are probably 75% similar and 25% different. I absolutely think that you are entitled to put in as many par 3's as you think is best. I just disagree with the notion that their is some absolute minimum of par 3's that should be a design standard.

As far as "driving range" courses on golf courses go, I agree that they aren't well designed if they overwhelmingly favor distance and do not create greater hazards the longer one throws off the tee. I have played such a permanent design that was recently pulled out of the ground due to lack of play. While it was fun to throw roller, roller, roller, putt, it failed to incorporate many of the best elements of the game and had nowhere near the strategy and accuracy required of Winthrop Gold.

I've designed and run 5 temp course events on ball golf courses. One design concept I've come to embrace is to make the best disc golf hole possible on each ball golf hole, but the pars do not necessarily have to match the ball golf pars, to avoid long, wide-open stretches.

Some of us aren't locked into the assumption that a great disc golf course must have at least 6-7 par 3's. That is an opinion. My opinion is to use the land in the way that makes the best possible championship disc golf course in the par range of 62-72.



It's a point of view shared by those who have done more design work in this area and studied it relative to disc golf elements. It also embraces the differences between disc and ball golf. There is no defense of par 72 for disc golf other than ball golf has par 72. Not one. There are several valid reasons specific to disc golf backing the "opinions" shared by the veteran designers who aren't trapped by ball golf thinking. Not a single technical reason has been put forth why par 72 makes sense for disc golf.

Very long courses are not as popular relative to shorter courses, all for reasons that relate to disc golf parameters, not ball golf. They use more land, cost more and cost more to maintain. On the other hand for ball golf, I don't believe par 3 courses are more popular than their par 72 courses. That's likely due to the difference in their parameters. We're still waiting for those supporting par 72 to come up with valid reasons for disc golf to have that long of a course. Until then, even courses over about 60 SSA are even suspect for public parks for day-to-day play unless they have an alternate set of shorter tees.

When disc golf supplants baseball as the great American sport 100 years hence, there will be hundreds of par 3 courses all over the place. Then the beauty and desirability of par 72 courses will become obvious to members of the <font color="blue"> Professional </font> Disc Golf Association. It's all about the added challenge. ;)

Par 72 courses which don't fall into the driving range trap you mention above will be a far better way to determine a Professional World Champion. Doesn't Climo hold his USDGC titles the most dear?

Doesn't Climo hold his USDGC titles the most dear?




I would guess it's primarily due to the quality of the competition, not particularly due to the course.

Over lunch I thought of a different way to come at this par 72 issue. Let's say you have a par 72 course, and as would be typical, the SSA comes in a little lower, around 70 let's say. Now, a new basket comes on the market that adds about 0.5 shots per hole to the putting average making the putting challenge almost as tough as ball golf. If you replace your baskets, the SSA on your course immediately jumps to 79 for a par 82 disc golf experience. Everything on your course is now closer to ball golf except the par which is 10 higher. Does this make any sense?

What do you do? You now have a putting challenge much closer to ball golf. It's unlikely you want to have a par 82 course. So, the primary way to adjust the par downward is to shorten some holes a little and several holes by full shots since you now likely have some par 6s and maybe a half dozen par 5s and maybe just two par 3s. So you ratchet the par back down to the now ideal, ball golf emulating, par 72.

My point is that this equivalent of 10 shots you would take out of the course in this hypothetical scenario is all of the extra "length padding" that's being pumped into the few current courses with pars around 72. If our longest courses are properly balanced between putting and throwing, they would have true pars in the 62-64 range. Then, if the putting challenge is ever boosted by substituting smaller baskets, these courses would then match the supposed ideal balance of ball golf and have pars around 72.

The comment about pars around 66-68 being the desired max for some of the experienced designers, recognizes that we're "padding" the courses with some extra length to get the par up a few shots higher than the more balanced 62-64. The only way to justify that extra padding as not being too unbalanced is to make sure the extra shots are controlled approaches and not just extra length that can be gobbled up strictly by having additional power.

Why do you assume that smaller baskets is the way to increase "shots on the green"?

Just as design elements (rope or well designed OB) have increased the effective throws/foot of fairway, I suspect designers will come up with new design elements to increase putts per foot of green.

Golfers will [I'm a potty-mouth!] at first, but these ideas will become accepted over time. Par 72 will become achievable using the same amount of land we use on par 62s, but without resorting to smaller baskets.

[QUOTE]
Some of us aren't locked into the assumption that a great disc golf course must have at least 6-7 par 3's. That is an opinion. My opinion is to use the land in the way that makes the best possible championship disc golf course in the par range of 62-72.



AMEN DENNY!

Love seeing the term Par72 thrown around, being that my company is called just that. When I named it Par72discgolf 6 years ago, my intention was for a disc golfer to see it and actually think something different than par 54 pitch and putt. I've dreamed of par 4's and 5's since the first time I threw a golf disc. It's great that we are seeing them implemented in our sport.
We do not feel that 72 actaully needs to be the number/par, just that we prefer to have it way different from 54.
Denny's quote above hit the nail on the head.
When the Par72disc golf Ranch is built, we will have a Par72 course and a 65ish course and a traditional 54. Maybe those #'s are not exact, because we are not going to be "Locked IN to ANY STANDARD"!
The 72 will not be ALL open bombers whatso ever. Will distance be rewarded? You betcha! Will there be risk? You betcha! Can't throw far? PRACTICE.

No need to go on, that's my .72 cents, even though that .72 cents won't get ya anything on URANUS.
Timmy Gill
www.par72discgolf.com (http://www.par72discgolf.com)

I

Unfortunately James, those items are not as effective for increasing the scoring average to the extent that either adding length or smaller baskets is. Let's say you add an OB area near a basket. I would estimate less than 1 in 25 players or so go OB. That adds .04 to the scoring average. A real tough OB area might have 1 in 10 go OB. That's only 0.1 added to the scoring average. All of the work to create an island green like Winthrop 17 only adds 0.3 to the scoring average. Adding just 28 feet boosts the scoring average by 0.1 or 85 feet adds 0.3. A smaller basket could boost the scoring average by 0.5, immediately change the parameters of the game to become more like ball golf (assuming that's good) and reduce the need for even more land to have challenging courses.

After thinking about it more, you are probably correct that one cannot achieve 0.5 throws per basket by toughening up the green. However, I am anticipating things unlike what you described. For example, I heard they had some elevated baskets as USDGC (like at Nockamixon), how many throws/green does a simple conceptual change like this add?

What is the par at USDGC? What is the SSA?

I believe Par at USDGC was 68 last year and the SSA was within one shot of 68 depending on wind. We don't have any stats that I know of for how much putting difficulty was increased with elevated baskets. However, when you think about the overall expense, it would likely be much cheaper and more effective to completely replace 18 baskets that were 0.5 tougher than to pay for all of the landscaping necessary to boost the putting scores the same amount. The extra set of baskets could just be popped in for tournaments. Or, in the case of double basket courses like Warwick, put the smaller ones in the long positions.

I would have to challenge the numbers from adding difficulty or OB close to the basket would only effect those players that managed to end up OB or placed in difficulty. There would also be an added effect on the putting effeciency of those that had to consider avoicing the OB in case of a missed putt. Those players that chose to lay up or play a more conservative putt will add to the over all putting average nearly as much as those that went OB.

I'm not arguing the slight effect. But most would agree that the island green is the "worst case" scenario and it only yields a 0.3 boost. Certainly we don't want the equivalent of 18 island greens. That's not to say that green areas in general couldn't be tougher. But with public parks, the ability to do it and also prevent vandalism that reduces challenge around baskets, makes this a tough task.

Here's an interesting nugget. Currently approved baskets would continue to be approved if their outer chains were removed. In fact, the whole chain section can be removed and the Mach, Chainstar or Discatcher baskets are still legal. Anyone want to try a preliminary putting test in their backyard and see what the difference might be for a mixture of 100 putts with and without outer chains? :)

Anyone want to try a preliminary putting test in their backyard and see what the difference might be for a mixture of 100 putts with and without outer chains?



I putt like that quite often at my buddies house who doesn't have any chains on his Strokesaver. I dont have any numbers to report but I can say that it is ridiculously hard to putt without chains from outside of about 12 feet. Of course I am not used to having to putt that way and I imagine once I adapted to it there would be a huge increase in the number of throws i would make in. BTW, doing this to all baskets would ruin this sport imo.

I'm not advocating it one way or the other. It's more of an interesting experiment to see what it would feel like to have putting average 9 more shots per round. I'm pretty sure removing the outer chains wouldn't be the ideal look for a smaller basket. But who's to say that maybe it wouldn't just make sense for tournaments?

I did a quick test out in my cold and windy backyard just now.

10 feet:
10/10 with
10/10 w/out

20 feet:
9/10 with (no inners and one slid out)
5/10 w/out

30feet:
6/10 with
0/10 w/out

Nowhere near enough data but I wasnt sitting out in the cold/wind to do 100 putts from each....lol

I say we keep the outer chains and mount the poles on those giant springs. Before your putt, your opponents can grab the basket and send it swaying. That will increase the number of putts. :p

Personally, I think that you are presently right about damage at public courses, or money concerns needed to build tough greens and such. However, in forty years, at a course analagous to what would host a PGA tourney, I think their will be innovative ways at making greens more difficult. I suspect it will include ideas none of us concieve of at the present moment, as well as some that are presently being tried.

I suspect it will include ideas none of us conceive of at the present moment, as well as some that are presently being tried.



Aahh, the real clown's mouth will be available. Windmills that double to supply power for the waterfalls around the green.

It's a point of view shared by those who have done more design work in this area and studied it relative to disc golf elements. It also embraces the differences between disc and ball golf. There is no defense of par 72 for disc golf other than ball golf has par 72. Not one. There are several valid reasons specific to disc golf backing the "opinions" shared by the veteran designers who aren't trapped by ball golf thinking. Not a single technical reason has been put forth why par 72 makes sense for disc golf.



I've been struggling for the past several hours to come up with a "technical" reason that par 72 makes sense for disc golf. The more I think, the more I realize that the only thing I can come up with is that if the designer wants to do it, then that's reason enough. To the victors go the spoils, right? Wrong, I was wrong. I thought that 36 years on this planet, 25 years of playing golf, and 10 years of working on golf courses gave me sufficient background to have an opinion on disc golf course design. I was mistaken to think for myself without first consulting "those who have done more design work in this area and studied it relative to disc golf elements", for whom CK has been appointed official spokesperson. (I'm not sure exactly who "they" are, but sorry David, Reese, and Timmy you're not in the club)

My errors of the past aside, I have seen the light! I'm now able to admit that I was the victim of ball golf brainwashing. I am now able to see 72 as just a number with no magical properties whatsoever. I can also now recognize the great beauty inherent in the number 66. In fact, if I stare long enough at it, I can become entranced by it's curvaceous symetry. I have found the ideal manner to arrive at 66 is with 12 par 3's, 2 par 4's, 2 par 5's, and 2 par 6's. In fact, I now see that any deviation from this golden formula would be foolhardy.

I also have had a revelation concerning our dilemma of the our variance of shots ATG from optimal, the Genesis of said revelation coming out of CK's proposed concepts of removing outer chains and utilizing smaller targets. Putting these two concepts together I arrive at this idea, I'll endearingly refer to as "Dr. Chucks". Outside of the 10 meter line players may shoot into the large target to complete the hole, but inside the 10 meter line they must shoot a mini-disc into the mini-basket to complete the hole.

I look forward to the day I can tell my grandkids, "I played disc golf in the dark days, BDC".

http://www.etherbinge.com/mvc-633s.jpg

Did you create this pole hole ?

I was mistaken to think for myself without first consulting "those who have done more design work in this area and studied it relative to disc golf elements", for whom CK has been appointed official spokesperson. (I'm not sure exactly who "they" are, but sorry David, Reese, and Timmy you're not in the club)




Sorry Denny. It's a tough crowd on this board. My remark may have been heavy handed but it can be part of the rhetorical repertoire of the "discussionistas" on here. It's not that the group of designers (Harold, Houck, Gentry) opinions are more valid because of experience, but it's the solid foundation of disc golf information underlying the point of view. All we hear is the drumbeat of par 72 from those who champion the cause with the only reason given as, "it's like ball golf." The rationale behind our advice is at least based on what we have learned from disc golf on its own merits including actual data.

There's nothing magic about about par 66-68 as some theoretical maximum for disc golf as it is today. It's just based on a variety of data and information put forth in the thread. I don't think any of us have something against striving to eventually legitimize par 70-72 courses. However, it would make more sense if our putting challenge becomes more like ball golf. Otherwise, as you struggled to come up with reasons, par 72 seems to make sense only because ball golf does it. But course owners certainly have the right to put in par 72 courses if they desire and their designers can help them do the best job possible.

Chuck, like I said earlier I think that we're close on the majority of design concepts. I'm in favor of longer courses with higher pars, but strongly believe in the importance increasing risk/reward the farther one gets off the tee. I believe that someone with 380-400 ft. power should be able to win a major championship. I think that making birdies should often require 40-60 ft. putts with the possibility of three-putting. I don't think that most baskets should be put in positions where they can easily and repeatedly be "parked" by pro players. I'm in favor of utilizing slopes for putting areas and am open to hanging baskets and baskets on top of stumps or other fixtures. I do not think we should set a "standard" par for championship disc golf. I enjoy debating details and hope that any friction I cause is minimal. I hope to have the opportunity to collaborate with you and/or some of the other more experienced designers at some point in the future.

This is an excellent discussion. It seems that we are starting to get down to the real core of the game here. I hope you all aren't getting too frustrated with the differences of opinions here that can seem to block the progression. I know that I, myself, already have some ideas that seem "obvious" to me to be the best choice for the future of the game. New ideas always take a while for people to accept. You can probably tell that I'm a pretty opinionated person, but I'll tell you, my opinion is always being reshaped (or at least I hope it is). We use arguement not because we just want to argue, but to challenge each other to find out what real substance our opinions consist of. Badgering the heck out of someone is a great way to learn! :D

Several people on this thread are obviously both educated and experience on the subject. Naturally, people are going to want to ask tons of questions, sometimes in the form of challenges.

Chuck: I, for one, appreciate you sharing the information about the sport that you have had to work to acquire. It is amazing how this course evaluation program has got people, such as myself, more focused on course design, even though it is only 10% of the courses' ratings! I know I could learn more on the subject by joining the design group. I will most likely do this. My only reservation is seing how rare would be the opportunity and resources to create new courses, espescially those of high calibur features. I'm thinking that it will be worth joining just for the sake of hearing about the latest ideas in course design and how people respond. I have a feeling that you guys get considerably more "in depth" than on this board, although I hardly see how you find the time to stay current with every world-wide posted message on disc golf.




I want to comment on the basket design, ATG factor, and par 72 course design.


It has been been mentioned that the best way to increase the ATG constant would be to make the baskets more difficult to hole out on. My experience in the game tells me that this would be a bad idea.

When I play a typical par 54 disc golf course, I play almost twice as many putts as I do drives. I average about 40 foot out after the drive and my 1 putts balance out with my 3 putts. Even on flat, tree-less greens, the Kansas wind makes putting the most challenging part of the game.

True, my drive is about pro level, while my putt is certainly not. It never ceases to amaze how I find new ways to miss 20' putts. It certainly keeps me out of the cash.

Point here is that putting does seperate the field much more than any other element of the game. Right now I feel disc golf is imbalanced toward putting. Never-the-less, it's good that we have putting disparity. Putting is a lot more exciting when you see some players canning long putts with ease while other skillful players can doink a short putt. If we make baskets smaller or more difficult, it would take away from both the putting skill variety and also the visual appeal to the game of seing skilled players show off their long putting skills.

Another problem with the baskets is that they spit. True, most of the spits are due to putts that didn't make the grade. But, you do see a great number of good shots that don't stay in. Playing on single chain baskets makes me realize that more difficult targets means that a lot more good shots will not stay. While some might find all the chain-outs an ugly part of the game, if you have a decent size sweet spot that most good current baskets do have, the chain-outs can be considered just a fun part of the game unique to disc golf, pointing out that very close is not always good enough.

With so many players complaining about reducing the luck involved with the game (which is really just natural consequences beyond the ability of the player to forsee or control), you really wouldn't want to make targets any tougher than they already are. By reducing the baskets size, the ratio of sweet spot to chancey areas (usually near the sides and top), becomes lessened. The "luck" involved with using inferior baskets is at least 10 times the supposed luck involved with landing over 2 meters up in a tree.

With that said, disc golf greens do typically lack much variety other than the putters' skills. What can we do other than make baskets more difficult to increase the "around the green" number of shots?

Most of it has been said. Putting more elevation on and around greens. Creating "fast" green surfaces. Considering wind direction in green design. Getting more foliage ON the greens and a lot more rough around the greens to create more holes that require CONTROLLED approach shots. This might be the most important, with elevation also being very controlling when it is in the extreme.

When these tools (and others?) are used in combination, you would be surprised at how effective ATG numbers could be increased. Of course, not everyone has the resources to make these type of greens happen. There lies the problem. In a lot of my discussion, I'm thinking about "ideal" golf design. Realistically, typical courses have to make due without many of the things that make truly great holes.



On to the ATG constant. From the beginning, this one puzzled me. Chuck has shown his graphs and formulas as hard evidence supporting his claim of disc golf having an ATG constant of 30. Most of us aren't inclined to dig in and disect the mathematics. Rather than argue in terms of the formulas, we argue that our experience doesn't seem to match up with the numbers that are being presented.

A very interesting formula that I was just introduced to via this thread is...

SSA = ATG constant (30) + [course footage / foilage factor (which averages 283' on an average foliage course for pro's)]

I'm inclinced to simplify the concept of greens as where a player would expect to average 2 shots from. This seems like it would be helpful in establishing how far back tees or landing areas should be.

However, this formula suggests greens PLUS surrounding areas to average only 1.7 shots (at most).

I can see how increasing ATG to 36 would be a problem. If you know the course's SSA and subtract 36, you then divide the course footage by the remainder to get the average drive distance (or foiliage factor).

An example would be an average foliage course of SSA 54 and length 7000'. 54-36=18. (7000' / 18 ) = 389'. We know that even top pros dont average 389' per hole in average density foliage. Wouldn't they average more than 285' though?

Some other things to take into account...

30 shots is not exactly a contant. Some courses require a lot more putts than others. Also, I can't help but wonder what distance is considered around the green. The formula itself, doesn't offer the answer.

The 1.7 putting average is probably mostly due to the fact that this is how the majority of courses were designed. If they started making courses that average 2.0 putts per hole, you would have better courses, but they would no longer fit this model with the rest of our existing majority of courses. The graph is therefore just a representation of what we currently have and not the final say.

Finally, it seems that the ATG number itself is a very blurry concept. Which shots count towards it? You have so many holes that average around 2.6 that it makes one-putting over-prevalent. If you designed courses more towards averaging 2 putts per hole, the hole pars would gain much more clarity, as in ball golf. Holes would have to be short enough, yet offer plenty of trouble to balance the birdies and the bogeys.



Let's look at another aspect to these numbers. Take the SSA 54 course with 7000' 18 shots are drives, 30 shots are putts. That leaves only 6 shots for mid-range. Maybe some of the drives are really mid-range shots. The harder the SSA is, the more mid-range shots there are.

As long as we are comparing putting ratios to ball golf, how about comparing mid-range ratio. Ball golf consist of three distinct types of shots: drives, irons, and putts. While not exactly the same, they are comparable with 3 distinct disc flights produced by drivers, mid-range discs, and putters. In par 72 ball golf you have about 36 putts, 15 drives, and 21 iron shots. As some of these putts are really chips, a significant percentage of the game consists of the mid-range, or iron shot. Not only are iron shots critical to the success of the golfer, they can be considered also the most difficult shots to execute on a pro level.

In par 54 disc golf, the only significant mid-range play you get is off the tee, which can be rare. Bringing the par up closer to 72, if done properly, would greatly increase the midrange portion of the game. 72-18 drives-30 putts= 24 mid range shots. I'm sure in practice that there would be more drives and putts and less mids, but you can see how there is more balance here than in par 54 golf.

Even though putting is still almost 50% on a par 72 course(which is more likely to have tricky greens), is it really critical that we maintain putting at 50%? Drives and upshots require so much shaping and creativity. Putting is mostly about repetition (it needs to become more about calculation).


So what is better, par 54 or 72? Are par 3's better or par 4's? The answer lies in what makes good hole design. Risk vs. Reward. There are certainly more options, thus more potential on par 4 holes. Creating the optimal balance between routes does become more difficult the more routes there are.

I agree with what Denny Ritner was getting at... choosing par 3 or 4 depends on the location of the tee or landing area your looking at. Big with several options of location would be more inclined toward par 4. One singular spot that offers better options for the next shot would often be more inclined toward the par 3. The quality of the hole is more important than the par. I just see more potential for par 4 (and par 5) holes.

I agree that there are many advantages to par 3's. Seing the pin is always a plus. When you consider how tough it is to make good par 4's, a lot of times sight of the pin will have to be sacrificed. Time per hole and flow of play works better with 3's. Less space is needed. Players are less likely to get discouraging scores on par 3's. Making course with a balance of 3's and 4's would certainly be an easier undertaking than one with mostly all 4's.

I've only played a couple of courses with big SSA's. Ted's Dread is a private course in the Kansas City area being one of them. The course designer is kind of a solitary guy. They don't get much traffic out on their course. I have no idea if he has had any influence when it come to disc golf course design. He has designed an "all natural" masterpiece seemingly just by intuition.

The fairways and greens are fairly well defined with trees on them, but more lining the perimeters. Every conceivable shot is used on the course. Anny's, flicks, rollers, thumbers, stalls... There are often several options, sometimes intentionally only one as there are a few dog-legg holes. Elevation plays a huge factor in the challenge as well as the beauty. Water comes into serious play on a few holes. Par 4's and 5's abound. It is easy to distinguish them (although predicting your score is not). Safe play that stays out of the rough is rewarded when you hear what score the other guy took. They call it Ted's Dread for a reason! The course plays par 60 on short-short and 70 on long-long. The shot variety from the different tees/ pins is trememdous.

It is one of the funnest courses I've ever played, even though it is the also the most difficult. A par 3 course could never compare to this. Too bad the land is being sold soon. Why does that always happen?!! The annual Red Bud Open tournament will be huge this year. It will be your last chance to play here. 04/16/06. Check it out at kcfdc.org.

One last thing... Par 72 disc golf doesn't have to be just like par 72 ball golf. Really, it can't be. You could have holes that are mid, drive, putt, putt or holes that play mid, mid, mid, putt. Par 3 doesn't offer this either. The possibilities are endless. One concept that ball golf does use for par 4's, that I think should be used often in disc golf, is to set up long mid-range shots for the approaches to greens. These decent looks at birdie should have to be earned with an accurate drive. Right now disc golf shots that approach the greens are mostly drives and putts. Par 62-72 will help balance out the game. Do you agree?

A couple items. The average throw of 285 for a round isn't too hard to imagine for Gold level players. There are usually several twoable par 3 holes and most are less than 300 feet on most courses. On par 4s and 5s, the drives to landing areas are rarely over 350 and the second shots will range from 125-250 feet. When I first determined the formula, I didn't know what I would find, but this 285 number seems right for average foliage.

Using the formula, you can come up with the distance where the shots around the green equals 2. Or in other words, at what distance would the Gold level player be expected to average getting down in 2 shots? The formula per hole looks like this: Hole score = 1.67 + (length/285). If we set the hole score at 2 and solve for the length, we get a length of 95 feet. So, Gold level players would be expected to get down in 2 on average whenever they are 95 feet from the basket.

A 95 ft radius "green" is pretty large. Let's say you wanted to drop that figure to 35 feet. If you can increase the putting challenge by just 0.2, Gold level players would be expected to get down in 2 from just 35 feet, instead of 95 feet under our current course metrics.

Chuck,
I'm exposing some ignorance here, but could you remind me what exactly the SSA's are used for? I understand the basics of the derivation.

Also, IMO if the 2nd shots on par 4's are in the 125-250 ft. range then the holes are probably too short. Exceptions being that someone cuts the corner of the lake with a 475 ft. bomb to leave them 125 ft. in, threads a tight fairway with a 600 ft. roller, or that approaches in the 200-250 ft. range are tightly wooded.

Remember that few courses in the country are designed for Gold level players. The 125-250 I mentioned is what will likely be the range of second shots on typical existing courses, not necessarily what good design might be on a Gold course. In fact, I would suspect the number is more like 50-175 for second shots on most courses for Gold level players.

The SSA or course rating must be generated for each round in order to set the reference point to calculate the player ratings for that round. It's kind of a bonus in the ratings process that we get both a course rating and player ratings out of the same set of scores.

Good points on the length question.

I was thinking that SSA was actually the regression line on the charts. How are the individual round SSA's calculated? I'm sure this has been posted before, but maybe I'm not the only slow one in the class.

Just a note: Vista in Az. Hole #18 has a basket on flat ground, no trees, but is about 15 feet from water. That increases percieved putting difficultly, but I have also heard complaining about the basket being too close to the water. Personally, I think the basket position is perfect. Likewise, slopes close to the target, but not directly under the target are good. Hole #18 at Winthop is a good example. Foliage on the greens is bad for several reasons. Tree trunks or other solid not moving objects on the green are good as long as they are not too extreme to prevent saves. I have seen extreme examples where a disc couldn't fly between the trees next to a basket. That's too extreme, IMO. I don't know how it would be designed, but a solid, non moving canopy of some sort, which would allow sideways flying entry, but not arcing ballistic entry into the chains would be interesting. Island holes are always viable on flat ground with no trees as long as OB can be clearly defined. Putting the basket on one side of a generous sized island would make getting onto the island relatively easy, but putting relatively risky. The point is to increase difficulty fairly. Easy pars and skilled risk birdies should be the model. Luck birdies are for the birds even though statistically they might look identical.

I agree with Dave on Vista hole 18 where the OB is crossed on the way to the basket but not behind the basket. However, I've heard that they are not going to use this great hole for the Memorial this year. It sounds like they are going to play from hole 1 to the 18 basket which seems like a lose-lose to me. They lose a fun, scary and great twoable hole with excellent scoring spread and make a dubious two shot hole with water less than 15 feet behind the pin, that's assuming they use the usual #18 pin location.

As far as the SSA calc, the short version is to calculate the average of all scores in the round and the average of all players with established ratings. If that's 55 and 950, the SSA will be about 50 since a 950 player is about 5 shots worse than 1000 rating for courses in this SSA range.

A couple items. The average throw of 285 for a round isn't too hard to imagine for Gold level players. There are usually several twoable par 3 holes and most are less than 300 feet on most courses. On par 4s and 5s, the drives to landing areas are rarely over 350 and the second shots will range from 125-250 feet. When I first determined the formula, I didn't know what I would find, but this 285 number seems right for average foliage.

Using the formula, you can come up with the distance where the shots around the green equals 2. Or in other words, at what distance would the Gold level player be expected to average getting down in 2 shots? The formula per hole looks like this: Hole score = 1.67 + (length/285). If we set the hole score at 2 and solve for the length, we get a length of 95 feet. So, Gold level players would be expected to get down in 2 on average whenever they are 95 feet from the basket.

A 95 ft radius "green" is pretty large. Let's say you wanted to drop that figure to 35 feet. If you can increase the putting challenge by just 0.2, Gold level players would be expected to get down in 2 from just 35 feet, instead of 95 feet under our current course metrics.




This seems pretty radical. There are many things you can do to a green to increase the scoring average well beyond .2 shots per hole. Elevation alone could do this. That doesn't mean 1000' rated players are going to average 2 shots from 35'. The ATG constant makes up the majority of this calculation. I'm still hesitant to put that much faith in something that doesn't have a clear definition.

I'd like to see more SSA's calculated and posted. There is a spreadsheet local clubs can use to do this. These could be posted at the course map, tee signs, on the score cards, course directory, evaluations. This single number gives players a real good idea of how they can expect to shoot. I also think we should include the Blue SA, White SA, or Red SA if you are playing a course designed for a level other than "scratch" gold.

Since we have this formula, we could easily come up with a foilage, or difficulty factor to include with the course length and SSA to give players an idea of not just how long, but how tough and technical a course will play.

The Course Index on the Disc Golf United website incorporates the Challenge Factor (foliage) for each course once known so that the SSA for all tee and pin combinations can be generated for handicapping. We do all of the pars and scoring averages for the five courses at Highbridge based on the color level of each set of tees. We're getting that ready for the North Course and future course at the new National Center. It's just a matter of course pros doing the work. The SSAs for all course layouts used in PDGA events for the past several years are all online.

www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php)

It's hard to know whether adding elevation to a pin actually adds to the ATG factor or just increases the effective length of a hole (more likely). If you have a hole where the pin is located on a natural mound 80 feet in diameter that's maybe 10 feet higher than the tee, we would calculate the effective length of the hole as 30 feet longer. This would add 0.1 to the scoring average on the length side of the formula, not the ATG. If the basket was on flat ground and suspended on a pole 10 feet higher than normal, I suppose the ATG would be impacted, perhaps by more than 0.1 in this case. But a ladder would be needed...

Using the formula, you can come up with the distance where the shots around the green equals 2. Or in other words, at what distance would the Gold level player be expected to average getting down in 2 shots? The formula per hole looks like this: Hole score = 1.67 + (length/285). If we set the hole score at 2 and solve for the length, we get a length of 95 feet. So, Gold level players would be expected to get down in 2 on average whenever they are 95 feet from the basket.



This is basically the rationale behind the philosophy of "Close Range (CR) Par", but slightly different numbers were used. TO put your math just a little differently:
2.0 = 1.67 + (Length/285)
0.33 = L/285
0.33 x 285 = L
L = 95 ft.

In the Close Range Par method maybe 95 should have been used instead of 120, but the numbers are still pretty close.
I used 120 as 0.33 x 360 with 360 coming from the 2002 drive data and the published PDGA design guidelines for Gold. The length of 360 is a length that about 75% of Gold level players can throw on a hole of average foliage.

I think it's very reasonable to think of a DG green as 95-120 ft. Putting in DG is very different from BG. A big difference is that in DC putting is much more like the usual shot than it is in DG.

To me, thinking of a 120 ft. DG shot as on the fringe of the green is analagous to a 40 ft. putt on the fringe of a BG green. But as has been demonstrated we don't need to follow older brother BG exactly anyway.

Close Range (CR) Par

The main idea is that par is calculated by the number of errorless throws in regulation to reach �close range� plus two throws from there to hole out. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in golf. �Close range� is much longer than 10 meters, though.

This method is built on several related assumptions: 1) The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 throws for disc golf should be an essential consideration for establishing par. 2) Par should be determined by the PDGA definition which is the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole. This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the �green�. With this method of determining par players will need expand their concept of the �green�. 3) A �close range� shot is longer than 10 meters. The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the expert drive length. For Gold level players this length works out to 120 ft., so it would be helpful to visualize the �green� as extending to 120 ft. from the basket.

The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor is one of the most important elements in determining par. The ATG refers to the number of putts needed to finish the hole. It has been determined to be a constant of 30 throws for 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Since the ATG factor is only 1.67, if a par 3 is calculated by one throw plus 2 shots ATG, then scores would average only 2.67 for par 3 holes. But if you add 0.33 throws to the 1.67 ATG then you have the 2 throws allowed in the definition of par. Therefore 0.33 is used as the factor to determine the maximum length of a close range shot. With the maximum length close range shot as 0.33 of the base drive length you have a length from which an expert player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. Thus a par 3 is calculated as 1 drive + (0.33 x Drive length) + 1.67 putts. Another way to conceptualize CR Par is to think of a maximum length par 3 as 1.33 throws plus 1.67 throws to hole out. For Gold level holes the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 multiplied by this length equals 120 ft. Keep in mind that the length to be used is �effective length� not �actual length�. �Effective length� takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups from doglegs and water carries. Therefore, for Gold level holes the maximum effective length for a par 3 is a 360 ft. drive plus a 120 ft. close range shot which equals 480 ft. (This can be simplified to the equation 360 x 1.33 = 480).

Another important concept of the CR Par method is that it is based on the �errorless� play of an expert player. Score averages, foliage density, and potential OB penalties are not considered in determining par because all that matters is how many errorless throws that it would take an expert player to reach close range in regulation. No matter how frequently it might happen, if a player hits a tree or goes OB then it was not an errorless throw. Scoring spreads and scoring averages may provide helpful information in determining the par of �tweener� holes, but these are not primary considerations with the CR Par method.
Since close range length is added to the drive length eagles will be very rare for holes at the maximum length. Keep in mind, though, that this only applies to holes at the maximum length. Most holes in existence would most likely be shorter than this, thus the chance of a birdie and eagle are far greater on existing holes.

Using CR Par there are existing par 2 holes, but since a player is allowed two close range shots to finish the hole a par 2 must have an effective length of �close range� or shorter. For Gold levels this length is 120 ft, so by definition, holes longer than 120 ft. are par 3.

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

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

Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = drive standard for each level x 1.33
<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>120</td><td>480 (360 + 120)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Excursus on the differences in putting between DG and BG as they relate to the CR Par method

The ATG factor is a key difference between disc golf and regular golf. Putting is easier in disc golf, so in golf the ATG factor is 2.3 but in DG it is only 1.67.

The CR Par method seeks to emulate older brother golf to an extent while incorporating the reality that putting in disc golf is very different from that of regular golf. The golf par standard is based on the length for the scratch player with average length to reach the flag in regulation. Green lengths vary widely, but in golf it is very possible to be on the front edge of the green and still be 60 feet (20 yards) from the hole. In golf the length used for par could be changed to be the length to reach the front of the green in regulation since the definition of par is reaching the green plus two shots to hole out. For example, if 45 ft (15 yards) was used as a standard then they would add 15 yards to their standard lengths for par. This standard would make eagles even more rare, but there is no reason why a hole at the maximum length should expect to be able to be eagled by scratch players.

Another difference in putting between the two sports relates to the putting stroke itself. In golf since putting is so different from the other strokes when you�re on the green the length measurement shifts from yards to feet and a player also makes a totally different type of shot using a different kind of club. In DG the throws are more similar so the length measurement stays in feet the whole time. One could say that as an approximation 1 ft of golf putting equals 3 ft. in disc golf. With this ratio a scratch player in both sports would make the same percentage of shots. For example, a scratch ball golfer would make 95% of 10 ft. putts and a scratch disc golfer would make the same percentage from 30 ft. Hence a 120 ft. DG shot would correspond to being on the green in golf 40 ft. from the pin. Thrown by a scratch player a 120 ft. DG shot has about a 5% chance of going in, so there is a small possibility of making the shot, but the probability is very low. Also, from 120 feet, with average foliage, a scratch disc golfer will hole out in no more than two throws approximately 98% of the time.

1 ft of golf putting equals 3 ft. in disc golf. With this ratio a scratch player in both sports would make the same percentage of shots. For example, a scratch ball golfer would make 95% of 10 ft. putts and a scratch disc golfer would make the same percentage from 30 ft.


I keep seeing these numbers posted. PGA tour pros make less than 50% of flat 10 footers. Throw in a 2 foot break and they're about 10%.

1 ft of golf putting equals 3 ft. in disc golf. With this ratio a scratch player in both sports would make the same percentage of shots. For example, a scratch ball golfer would make 95% of 10 ft. putts and a scratch disc golfer would make the same percentage from 30 ft.


I keep seeing these numbers posted. PGA tour pros make less than 50% of flat 10 footers. Throw in a 2 foot break and they're about 10%.



Don't forget the words that prededed it, "One could say that as an approximation..." These numbers were purely out of my head. If they're not accurate then so be it.

At the risk of being accused of nit-picking, I'd say that "as an approximation" the difference between 95% and less than 50% is pretty big.

You posted the same #'s on 1/7 and I pointed it out then. By no means does this discredit the points you were making in regards to defining putts or par, but I, for one, am less inclined to read lengthy posts from those that pull numbers out of their heads that are way off and back them up with "so be it" when it's pointed out.

I didn't really agree with the scratch DGer making 95% of his 30 footers either. That is if scratch is considered around 950. 1030 players maybe. But I would agree that 3' BG is comperable to 10' in DG.

I didn't really agree with the scratch DGer making 95% of his 30 footers either. That is if scratch is considered around 950. 1030 players maybe. But I would agree that 3' BG is comperable to 10' in DG.






But does 10=30? 20= 60? 30=100? Personally I dont think even 3=10. I think a scratch golfer misses more 3 footers in BG then 1000 rated disc golfers miss "real" 10 footers. A 10 footer in DG is really only about 7 feet from the release point. Also if you are talking 10 feet from the pole then you are nearly 5 feet from touching the front of the basket upon release.

I didn't really agree with the scratch DGer making 95% of his 30 footers either. That is if scratch is considered around 950. 1030 players maybe. But I would agree that 3' BG is comperable to 10' in DG.




Barry only hits like 45% from 30ft /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I didn't really agree with the scratch DGer making 95% of his 30 footers either. That is if scratch is considered around 950. 1030 players maybe. But I would agree that 3' BG is comperable to 10' in DG.



I consider scratch as 1000 PR.

At the risk of being accused of nit-picking, I'd say that "as an approximation" the difference between 95% and less than 50% is pretty big.

You posted the same #'s on 1/7 and I pointed it out then. By no means does this discredit the points you were making in regards to defining putts or par, but I, for one, am less inclined to read lengthy posts from those that pull numbers out of their heads that are way off and back them up with "so be it" when it's pointed out.



The ratio of 3:1 is only written in an excursis that is my musings about the differences between BG and DG. They are not at all central to the philosophy of CR par. That's why I don't consider if a big deal if they're not accurate. Also, since they are not important that whole offending sentence with that ratio has now been removed anyway.

Where can I find the numbers associated with the foliage factor? If average foliage is a 5 (285) then what numbers represent 1-4 and 6-10?

<table border="1"><tr><td> FOLIAGE</td><td>RANGE</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Pinball</td><td>218</td><td>234
</td></tr><tr><td>Tighter</td><td>235</td><td>251
</td></tr><tr><td>Corridor</td><td>252</td><td>264
</td></tr><tr><td>Woodsy</td><td>265</td><td>277
</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>278</td><td>292
</td></tr><tr><td>Stands</td><td>293</td><td>307
</td></tr><tr><td>Scattered</td><td>308</td><td>324
</td></tr><tr><td>Isolated</td><td>325</td><td>354
</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>355</td><td>385
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Close Range (CR) Par

The main idea is that par is calculated by the number of errorless throws in regulation to reach �close range� plus two throws from there to hole out. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in golf. �Close range� is much longer than 10 meters, though.

This method is built on several related assumptions: 1) The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 throws for disc golf should be an essential consideration for establishing par. 2) Par should be determined by the PDGA definition which is the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole. This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the �green�. With this method of determining par players will need expand their concept of the �green�. 3) A �close range� shot is longer than 10 meters. The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the expert drive length. For Gold level players this length works out to 120 ft., so it would be helpful to visualize the �green� as extending to 120 ft. from the basket.

The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor is one of the most important elements in determining par. The ATG refers to the number of putts needed to finish the hole. It has been determined to be a constant of 30 throws for 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Since the ATG factor is only 1.67, if a par 3 is calculated by one throw plus 2 shots ATG, then scores would average only 2.67 for par 3 holes. But if you add 0.33 throws to the 1.67 ATG then you have the 2 throws allowed in the definition of par. Therefore 0.33 is used as the factor to determine the maximum length of a close range shot. With the maximum length close range shot as 0.33 of the base drive length you have a length from which an expert player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. Thus a par 3 is calculated as 1 drive + (0.33 x Drive length) + 1.67 putts. Another way to conceptualize CR Par is to think of a maximum length par 3 as 1.33 throws plus 1.67 throws to hole out. For Gold level holes the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 multiplied by this length equals 120 ft. Keep in mind that the length to be used is �effective length� not �actual length�. �Effective length� takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups from doglegs and water carries. Therefore, for Gold level holes the maximum effective length for a par 3 is a 360 ft. drive plus a 120 ft. close range shot which equals 480 ft. (This can be simplified to the equation 360 x 1.33 = 480).

Another important concept of the CR Par method is that it is based on the �errorless� play of an expert player. Score averages, foliage density, and potential OB penalties are not considered in determining par because all that matters is how many errorless throws that it would take an expert player to reach close range in regulation. No matter how frequently it might happen, if a player hits a tree or goes OB then it was not an errorless throw. Scoring spreads and scoring averages may provide helpful information in determining the par of �tweener� holes, but these are not primary considerations with the CR Par method.
Since close range length is added to the drive length eagles will be very rare for holes at the maximum length. Keep in mind, though, that this only applies to holes at the maximum length. Most holes in existence would most likely be shorter than this, thus the chance of a birdie and eagle are far greater on existing holes.

Using CR Par there are existing par 2 holes, but since a player is allowed two close range shots to finish the hole a par 2 must have an effective length of �close range� or shorter. For Gold levels this length is 120 ft, so by definition, holes longer than 120 ft. are par 3.

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

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

Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = drive standard for each level x 1.33
<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>120</td><td>480 (360 + 120)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>




It would seem to me that CR par has more disadvantages than otherwise.

I don't know that we should favor keeping the 1.67 putts per hole figure as we need to encourage tougher greens. Chuck said something like making the greens tougher would effect the effective length more than the ATG. This kinda lost me and makes me think the this ATG figure is quite undefinable.

Anyways, if you just give the players .33 strokes around the green, how is that going to effect the par for the course? Also, if a player gets within 20 feet of the green on his drive, are you going to call the hole a par 4? That would be giving him a full stroke for every hole this happens (which would be quite a few as designs exist currently).

On the otherhand, you gotta be carefull about how you interpret errorless play. If it's inside your range and you don't ace, it's not errorless play. Is this a good interpretation? Of course not. Likewise, if you have a pinball fairway with lots of OB, you can't make par so that only 1/100 will achieve it.

It is my opinion that most holes should be designed with a certain par in mind. Again, if the hole is wide open, this won't work well as everyone will get par. I like the idea of having the course par close to the SSA. With CR par, who knows what you'll come up with. Seems like it would vary a lot. If you design courses with the Hole Scoring Average close to a whole number (and good deviation with bogeys and birdies), the CR par would seem to apply to a lot more holes. These holes would then have more defined landing areas and greens, even if only derived from scoring averages.

<table border="1"><tr><td> FOLIAGE</td><td>RANGE</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Pinball</td><td>218</td><td>234
</td></tr><tr><td>Tighter</td><td>235</td><td>251
</td></tr><tr><td>Corridor</td><td>252</td><td>264
</td></tr><tr><td>Woodsy</td><td>265</td><td>277
</td></tr><tr><td>Average</td><td>278</td><td>292
</td></tr><tr><td>Stands</td><td>293</td><td>307
</td></tr><tr><td>Scattered</td><td>308</td><td>324
</td></tr><tr><td>Isolated</td><td>325</td><td>354
</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>355</td><td>385
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>




So Chuck, i am wondering what is the ratio of Tree's on a Pinball hole compared to say Corridor to Average hole's?
If i'm reading this correctly.


Thanx :cool:

At this point, the connection between the numbers and the real world is thru the SSA values we gather from events and knowing the course length. Once we know what courses have certain factors, you get the sense of where an unknown course might end up by walking thru the course and seeing what the density of trees looks like.

For example, Ft. Steilacom comes in around 320 for the course foliage factor which makes sense to me having been there. Delaveaga is in the 230-250 range depending on the layout. At some point, we'll have an easier way to look up these values. They're sort of available via the SSA values posted online but the course lengths for the layout s aren't yet provided online. Once you have a consistent value for a course, you can switch pins and confidently calculate a new SSA regardless of the thousands of pin combinations possible.

For example, Ft. Steilacom comes in around 320 for the course foliage factor which makes sense to me having been there. Delaveaga is in the 230-250 range depending on the layout.



Well then this make's no sense to me as i have played both course's and i'll agree that Dela has in Gen. more tight fairway's, but to say that Stilly is "Isolated" :confused: :confused: when it comes to Tree's that is WRONG in so many way's. :D;)

It's not Isolated but Scattered at Steily. It's possible the word choices could be a little more precise but the numerical values are accurate. The only foliage level we know for sure is None. Vista del Camino for the Memorial can be over 350 but with the tough OB can drop to 310. So, it's not just foliage that contributes to the factor, but most of the time it is.

I don't know that we should favor keeping the 1.67 putts per hole figure as we need to encourage tougher greens.



The ATG of 30 per 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole is a constant. It has also just been revalidated with the latest data.


...Also, if a player gets within 20 feet of the green on his drive, are you going to call the hole a par 4? That would be giving him a full stroke for every hole this happens (which would be quite a few as designs exist currently).



Whichever mehod of par you use you will have "tweener" holes with current designs. If you use the SA Par method you will also have lots of tweener holes with score averages like 3.49-3.51 that you will have to call a tough par 3 or an easy par 4.


....I like the idea of having the course par close to the SSA. With CR par, who knows what you'll come up with. Seems like it would vary a lot. ...



This is true, but this variance can also be a good incicator of course difficulty by comparing score averages to par.

Disc golf needs a universal standard to determine par. Par is one of the most fundamental elements of disc golf, but because of differing assumptions course pros and designers remain divided over how to determine par. There are three competing philosophies for setting par. Two are more established and one is a new proposal. These philosophies can best be described and differentiated by how they determine the maximum length for a par 3 hole. The three methods are: Ball Golf (BG) Par, Score Average (SA) Par, and Close Range (CR) Par.

(Note: All of the definitions below assume average foliage density [foliage factor 5]).

1. Ball Golf (BG) Par uses the same approach as ball golf, so on a par 3 a player should be able to reach the basket with a good drive. An eagle is possible with a superb shot. There are no par 2s.

2. Score Average Par is based on Scoring Average (for a particular playing level), so a par 3 is calculated from the length of hole that a scratch player would average from 2.50 up to 3.49. At the maximum length and average foliage a par 3 probably requires two shots for a scratch player to get to the basket. At the maximum hole length of 520 ft. this makes an eagle almost impossible and it is rare for a typical scratch player to make a birdie. There are par 2s for holes with an SSA of 2.49 and below.

3. Close Range Par: On a par 3 a scratch player should be able to drive to �close range� and then take two shots to hole out. In ball golf terms this is like reaching the front edge of the green. The length of �close range� is 0.33 times the average drive length for a scratch player at each player level. For a Gold level hole the maximum �close range� length is 120 ft. for a total hole length of 480 ft. At this length an eagle is almost impossible, even for a scratch player, and birdies will be rare. There are par 2s, but they are only �close range� or shorter (120 ft. for Gold Level).

Comparing the maximum length for par 3s: BG Par is shortest (360 ft.), CR Par is longer (480 ft.), and SA Par is longest (520 ft.). This affects the minimum score possible in relation to par. For a max length hole BG Par can at best score an eagle, while CR Par and SA Par will only rarely be birdied.

These definitions are used to set the maximum length standards for par on existing holes. Because of gray zones and good hole design the maximum length would not even be a desirable length for course designers to use for future courses. However, these standards can mainly be used to determine par for the many courses already in existence.
Also keep in mind that the term �length� refers to �effective length�. Effective length is the actual length adjusted for elevation changes, forced lay-ups (from doglegs and water carries). For simplicity the lengths used in this discussion can be thought of in terms of holes with no elevation changes. Also assume holes of average foliage density (foliage factor 5).

I believe that Close Range Par does the best job of addressing the unique aspects of disc golf and it offers the best alternative to overcome the weaknesses of the other two methods.

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

Advantages of BG Par:
� It appears to follow the PDGA definition pretty closely. The PDGA definition is as follows: �Par means errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out.� (However, the term �close range� needs to be quantified.)
� There is a possibility of an eagle on even the longest holes
� It corresponds to the precedent of golf. On all golf holes a typical scratch player with average length has the potential for an eagle and a even higher possibility of making a birdie.
� For holes of maximum length if birdies are rare then you�ve lost 1/3 of the potential scores relative to par. Without birdies there will be only pars or bogies. The best you could hope for is to stay even with your position relative to par, you couldn�t improve it. A higher possibility of birdies provides for better score spreads because players have a chance to go under par on a hole. Better score spreads make better holes.
� The psychological factor. The rare, but occasional eagle is thrilling! Also, players are more encouraged by a greater possibility for making birdies. If they can�t even make a birdie then they can only maintain their position relative to par or lose a stroke to par.

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

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

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

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

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

Lowe, it is obvious that you are concerned about how the PDGA will promote the concept of par in the future of course design and publishing par values specific to course layouts. I, too, think this is something that needs serious consideration. Once we get some solid ground on what par is in disc golf, course design and even player awareness with increase and our sport will advance.

After reading your post, I would still be inclined to use SSA to establish par. A few things....

I'm not sold on a 1.67 around the green constant in disc golf. Through the recent discussion, it has been more or less said that making the greens more difficult won't change the ATG number, only the course difficulty number (which we interpret as foliage factor). This is just silly. The 1.67 is a constant in the formula, but doesn't seem to represent anything much defined at all.

If you think of the green in disc golf as the area players average 2 shots from, course design would appear to become easier as tees should be made to put the average shots within the correct range.

By using SSA to set par, you can identify some holes that have problems. A hole that is a very long par 3 (3.49) is usually not offering as good a score variety as one made a little longer that offers 3, 4, and 5 rather than just 3 or 4. Keep in mind though that foliage and other difficulty factors play a key role in determining the scoring range of the hole. Too little extra challenge is a problem, but too much can be a problem as well. Also, a hole averaging 3.49 might not be 2 excellent throws. Their might just be a ton of OB on the hole.

Chuck mentioned that the formula was useful for converting SSA's to different course lengths. He said the difficulty factor number was pretty consistent so that you could just add/subtract the distance change with different tees or pins and come out with a new SSA.

Now, I'd like to see how well the chart for foliage/length estimates correct hole pars. I'd suggest an experiment. Take an SSA from a known configuration. Put the course length and SSA into the formula and solve for the difficulty factor. Look the estimated hole scoring averages up in the foliage/length/par chart using hole length and foliage number. Use the foliage number that corresponds to the condition of the individual hole. Use the estimated scoring average numbers for each hole. Ex. 3.2, 4.7, 2.9 etc. Add all 18 of these estimated scoring averages up and see if you come close to the true SSA for the configuration. Should be pretty close, right?

Now try a completely different configuration for the same course. Use the same difficulty factor, adjust the length and solve with the formula for estimated SSA. Now, repeat the process using the chart to add all of the estimated hole score averages up. Do they come close to the estimated SSA? If this course has an SSA established, did the estimated SSA come close to the real SSA?

Seems if they do, the system is a pretty good estimation for both SSA's and hole SSA's. Maybe Chuck has gave it some practice already. He wouldn't post it if he didn't believe it worked.

Another approach is to collect your own data with your local league. Their is a spreadsheet that calculates SSA's, hole SSA's, and local player ratings for any configuration you play in league. It also talks about establishing WCP from SSA, which is basically what we are discussing here.


These 3 tools seem to be the most convenient.

SSA=30 + distance in feet/difficulty factor.

The hole scoring average chart...http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/kL7lQ7-PccNUJY0xaWIC_tMyQAWuSYGeWETiwcOwkbGwPGq1vw-G3RE8V75f5S-dl_EDXsSAZ6UrhCXffhsNGCCCissMDb7EkAb7ElSOjAAUtxvv7 D6qaJnPQrk/ScoreAvgChart.jpg

The SSA spreadsheet.... http://pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcWCPtemp200.xls



Your right though about hole SSA not really being public knowledge. Once the details are hammered out, this info on how to use tools like the formula and the chart should be made easily understood and accessible. At least SSA's should be posted at courses, the course directory, and such. If par is going to be established for different skill levels, par should be listed for different skill levels.

I'm not sure how any of these other methods for establishing par would be superior to actual scoring data. When players are averaging 10 under par per round, you know you have a par problem (as we do).

CR par does point to the problem though. If the par number is to make sense, you have to know the size and location of the green, which could be thought of as the area where player average 2 shots to complete the hole. It is my opinion that the tee should be placed where the bogeys and birdies are approximately balanced, yet the bogs and birds consist of at least 30% of the hole's scores.

Theres no reason why these methods couldn't be used together. That's kind of what I'm suggesting with the whole concept of green as 2 shots idea. If holes were designed better (tougher greens and holes averaging closer to whole numbers), there wouldn't be much difference in using these 3 methods to determine par. My main point, is that what choice you use for setting par doesn't make a bad hole better. SSA's don't make bad holes, they just help point them out.

1. Design the course from each set of tees for one of the four identified player skill levels following the Disc Golf Course Design Standards and Player Skill Levels documents: www.pdga.com/makecrse.php (http://www.pdga.com/makecrse.php) and www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf)

2. Measure holes and calculate adjusted lengths. Use the Suggested PDGA Par Guidelines chart to estimate par for each hole. www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf)

3. Consider adjusting hole lengths by adjusting tee and/or pin locations on holes with:
a. less than average foliage and estimated scoring averages within +/- 0.3 of 3, 4, or 5
b. scoring averages less than 2.5 or more than 5.5 (unless a par 6 is your intention)

4. On tweener holes with estimated scoring averages between X.33 and X.67, par can be set either higher or lower as a starting point. In general, it�s ideal if the overall par for that course layout ends up no more than 3-4 throws higher than the estimated scoring average for that player skill level. So, on tweener holes, round the par up or down with both the design intention of the hole in mind and its impact on the overall par for the course.

5. Install the course and gather hole scoring data when possible. Use the instructions in the Excel document for determining league SSA values www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcWCPtemp200.xls (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcWCPtemp200.xls) to adjust them to a skill level based on ratings. See how well your estimates matched the actual scoring information. Make adjustments in the hole designs on holes with poor scoring distribution (i.e. one score more than 70%) and/or adjust par values on the tweener holes as desired.

Members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group have more detailed and automated tools to make steps 2, 3 and 5 a little easier. But the PDGA site has provided the basic information so that anyone can do this manually.

Step 4 above regarding tweener holes is where the differences show up between Lowe's three par methods. Ball golf (BG) par overestimates the likely scoring average the most. It produces the most inflated "under par" scores where we've become accustomed to the winner at Worlds ending up 80 under par.

CR par is an improvement over BG par in terms of getting closer to actual scoring averages. The SA par method is usually the closest estimate but still likely overestimates the actual average because the number of holes that average from X.51 to X.9 typically outnumbers holes that average X.1 to X.49 about 3 or 4 to 1 (and several of those are likely 2.4 which you would want to change anyway).

While I use scoring averages the most, we shouldn't be slaves to that method. The explanation for step 4 shows that overall balance of hole pars on the course ultimately should determine the pars on the tweener holes if the goal is to get the total course par to come relatively close to the scoring average of the player skill that layout was designed for. If it's better for a hole that averages 4.6 to be a really tough par 4, then so be it.


The 1.67 is a constant in the formula, but doesn't seem to represent anything much defined at all.




It's not directly relatable to physical elements but then neither is the 2.3 in ball golf. Nonetheless, they are intrinsic constants on average in each sport.

For those who might desire the ball golf type holes with scoring spreads where birdies and bogeys are each 20-30% of the scores and pars run 40-60% of them, you'll need wooded terrain with elevation as a bonus. The only downside is that the holes with the same pars will start to look and feel a lot alike. It's also likely that players will feel certain shots are more luck than skill. That's how some designers might get scoring spread to emulate BG type holes when putting is as easy as it is in our sport relative to BG. Change the basket, change the dynamics.

Good points.

Anything that improves score variety fairly is a great thing for course design. The concept of risk / reward with drives, approaches, and putts seems to be one of the best concepts for hole design. I'm sure their are a lot of subtleties to course design that the average player isn't accutely aware of.

To improve the standard deviation of the scores, it is better to have 3 or more different scores rather than just 2. Holes that have scoring averages close to a whole number do this much more easily. They also resemble the birdie/ bogey balance of ball golf that give the par value a significant meaning.

I don't think that these types of holes resemble one another very much at all. Quite the opposite, they have variety. There are all different types of ways to make the course more challenging, but at the same time still offering the enticing chance for a birdie. Making players use both their heads and their skills takes away from the luck of the game rather than adding to it. I'm not saying all of the holes would need a birdie/ bogey balance, just more of them. Tweener holes can be fun too.

As far as changing baskets go, I'd be in favor of whatever could make the target catch more consistently. You could play all metal counts, or use tone poles. That, of course, wouldn't be as fun as the targets we use now. The fun and the visual integrity of the target are important too. You can't get rid of all the "luck". It's part of what makes the game fun. This is a "game" that we are playing.

If you make the target more difficult, it would diminish the visual appeal of the game and frustrate the players. It would also diminish the variance of the range at which player successfully putt, so putting ability would show less and not more. For example, shots landing 20-40' away from the basket currently make the difference between good putters and not so good. By making the target smaller you would decrease that range to 10-20' and not nearly as many shots would fall in this area. This attempt to make the game more about putting would actually just make the game less about putting and more about (short) upshots. That is what the main focus is on par 70 style courses (long upshots), only with much more fun variety of shots.

Nothing like theories and good intentions bumping up against real world data. While it may be ideal if it were possible to design (good) holes with the ball golf 3-score percentages, in practice, it's very difficult to do in disc golf, especially if you don't have the terrain, or money and flexibility to do landscaping. A BG pro whose approach is either to within 8 feet or not, and then makes or misses that putt is where the majority of the 3-score variance comes from. The same would happen in disc golf with a tougher basket.

I'm not suggesting we would be smart to do this or should do this partly because our putting is more boring than BG and why add to it? The tradeoff will be our continuation of more holes with primarily 2 scores comprising the bulk of the scores even on good holes.

Here's actual scoring data from three courses ranging from Open to Wooded. The data is from Mid-Nationals players with an average rating that matches the intention of the course design in each case.

Open Course - Granite Ridge
<table border="1"><tr><td> Score</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>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>15%</td><td>30%</td><td>2%</td><td>50%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>48%</td><td>0%</td><td>46%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>41%</td><td>50%</td><td>9%</td><td>0%</td><td>24%</td><td>5%
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>65%</td><td>62%</td><td>41%</td><td>48%</td><td>67%</td><td>7%</td><td>40%</td><td>50%</td><td>17%</td><td>50%</td><td>0%</td><td>56%</td><td>57%</td><td>48%</td><td>65%</td><td>2%</td><td>72%</td><td>82%
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>21%</td><td>7%</td><td>40%</td><td>2%</td><td>28%</td><td>43%</td><td>44%</td><td>2%</td><td>51%</td><td>2%</td><td>27%</td><td>40%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>23%</td><td>49%</td><td>2%</td><td>11%
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>15%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>29%</td><td>12%</td><td>0%</td><td>26%</td><td>0%</td><td>48%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>4%</td><td>37%</td><td>1%</td><td>2%
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>15%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>0%</td><td>16%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>12%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>10%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Half Wooded Course - Blueberry Hill
<table border="1"><tr><td> Score</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>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>27%</td><td>16%</td><td>24%</td><td>1%</td><td>1%</td><td>48%</td><td>21%</td><td>0%</td><td>39%</td><td>0%</td><td>22%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>61%</td><td>0%</td><td>61%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>71%</td><td>70%</td><td>54%</td><td>55%</td><td>49%</td><td>50%</td><td>65%</td><td>2%</td><td>56%</td><td>51%</td><td>70%</td><td>50%</td><td>59%</td><td>30%</td><td>35%</td><td>0%</td><td>37%</td><td>48%
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>1%</td><td>11%</td><td>21%</td><td>39%</td><td>43%</td><td>2%</td><td>15%</td><td>45%</td><td>4%</td><td>39%</td><td>7%</td><td>39%</td><td>35%</td><td>61%</td><td>2%</td><td>52%</td><td>2%</td><td>44%
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>1%</td><td>4%</td><td>1%</td><td>5%</td><td>6%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>33%</td><td>1%</td><td>10%</td><td>1%</td><td>7%</td><td>6%</td><td>9%</td><td>1%</td><td>44%</td><td>0%</td><td>7%
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>17%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%
</td></tr><tr><td>7+</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Mostly Wooded Course - Woodland Greens
<table border="1"><tr><td> Score</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>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>18
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>41%</td><td>35%</td><td>20%</td><td>14%</td><td>1%</td><td>4%</td><td>41%</td><td>16%</td><td>10%</td><td>49%</td><td>29%</td><td>46%</td><td>0%</td><td>33%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>0%</td><td>33%
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>49%</td><td>56%</td><td>66%</td><td>54%</td><td>47%</td><td>52%</td><td>47%</td><td>65%</td><td>61%</td><td>44%</td><td>56%</td><td>48%</td><td>22%</td><td>59%</td><td>47%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>51%
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>9%</td><td>6%</td><td>11%</td><td>29%</td><td>34%</td><td>34%</td><td>10%</td><td>18%</td><td>19%</td><td>5%</td><td>13%</td><td>6%</td><td>54%</td><td>8%</td><td>5%</td><td>5%</td><td>54%</td><td>16%
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>1%</td><td>3%</td><td>3%</td><td>1%</td><td>15%</td><td>8%</td><td>3%</td><td>1%</td><td>9%</td><td>1%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td><td>19%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>20%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Even with much woods, it's difficult to emulate the ball golf ideal where the sum of the two most common scores will likely be less than 80% of all scores. As you scan the table, you'll see that the sum of the two highest percentages in most cases exceeds 80%. Most of these holes have good distributions from a DG perspective. Holes 17 & 18 on Granite Ridge are probably the weakest and we've already decided to turn those into one hole this year.

Scoring percentages are alway neat to look at. It looks like several of these holes have over 10% for 3 different scores. As you mentioned, almost all have less than 70% for one score. It'd be interesting to see data on a course I've played.

I see that the open course has more par 4's and 5's. It must be considerably longer. Is the SA for the appropriate rating close to 61 for Granite Ridge and 56 for the other 2 courses?

What are the best and worst holes for each course in your opinion? Just looking at which holes are the closest to ball golf scoring, it looks like hole 1 at Granite Ridge, Holes 3 and 7 for Blueberry Hill, and holes 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, & 17 for Woodland Greens are really close. More woods does improve the number of these types of holes. Of course there are other things that play a roll in how good a hole is. How do these hole compare with other holes on the course as far as design quality?

Look for yourself. All of these courses are included online with completed evaluations. How about that for a segue back to the topic of this thread? :D

Granite and Blueberry have SSAs around 54 with Blue scoring averages near 60 which were the players who provided the scores. White players played the White (only) tees on Woodland with an SSA around 49 and White scoring average near 56 as you indicated.

There are several good holes on each course with GR3, 6, 7, 9 and 16 probably favorites. BH2, 5, 8, 13 and 16 are favorites which does not necessarily mean they are the best technically. WG13 and 17 are the most notable with 17 being the one with likely an 'around the green' factor over 1.67 due to the basket being perched in three trees (the picture I posted a while back).

Chuck,
Our courses here in St Louis will change drastically from the dead of winter to late spring in terms of foilage.

How can this be interpreted for accuracy in your foilage rating?

Leaves only have a minor impact on the foliage density factor relative to the trees and branches themselves, especially when a lot of courses have fir trees that don't change. If you run PDGA events on the same course when foliage is full and when the leaves are down, you can compare the SSA values for your courses by looking at the stats online. In cases where that's been done, the difference appears minimal (less than 1 shot).

Lowe,
Dont you feel a good course designer should have the par in mind when designing the holes and/or course?

I wouldnt think Pete Dye, Gary Player or Hale irwin would have to get back the results from a few events before assigning the par to the holes :confused:

I Guess I use the ball golf method, it makes the most since.

My new philosophy is that all pin placements and tee boxes will have the same par for on each hole.
This makes signage and scorecards more consistant.

I also declare a course to be championship or recreational and assign the pars accordingly.
A par 68 recreational is most likley a par 54 course for Intermidiate palyers and up.
If it is a championship course that plays to a par 72 I dont see the need to make it par 90 for recreational players. They should know they are on a championship course before their 1st throw!
Do you see problems with assigning par this way?

This makes sense on an intuitive level.

That's why a set standard of par and skill levels is so very crucial if we hope to make this aspect of disc golf meaningful AND useful.

Leaves only have a minor impact on the foliage density factor relative to the trees and branches themselves, especially when a lot of courses have fir trees that don't change. If you run PDGA events on the same course when foliage is full and when the leaves are down, you can compare the SSA values for your courses by looking at the stats online. In cases where that's been done, the difference appears minimal (less than 1 shot).



Are you saying 1 shot per round.
If so, Thats definitely not the case at Endicott.
This course probably plays 4-5 strokes harder in late spring than winter.

You'll have to prove that with sufficient event data, not just your opinion. Five shots is the difference between courses that are mostly wooded versus almost wide open for the same length. Even 40mph winds will not affect scores on a course by more than about 4 shots. One thing that offsets loss of foliage is colder temperatures where discs do not fly as far. So, even with less foliage, players will have to throw harder for the same distance and may not reach some holes they do in the summer when temps are 25 degrees.

This makes sense on an intuitive level.




Not to me it doesn't. It takes the heart right out of the word "par." Y'all are essentially implying that I (a lousy ball golfer) should expect to find some course where I will shoot par on rather than 40 over par. When my buddy from across the country who is actually good and shoots real par calls and asks me what I shoot, I respond "par." He thinks we are equally accomplished golfers, that we are on "par" with each other.

If we want to butcher language, create confusion, and make ability comparisons very difficult, let's create pars for every skill level.

If we want to butcher language, create confusion, and make ability comparisons very difficult, let's create pars for every skill level.



You mean like ball golf? That's how they do it. Par for each set of tees, now up to five on some courses.

It's more like telling your buddy you shot par from the Red tees where he is playing from the blues. A red level player wouldn't have his very own par when he plays the gold tees. That is how i see it.

Nothing wrong with par conversion charts at the pro shop. In ball golf, the handicap guidelines for women playing the back blue tees and men playing the shorter red tees are available but usually not on the scorecard. Maybe we'll pull together a par conversion chart available for downlaod that will allow players to convert the Blue par of 56 to what Red level players should expect for scores.

I see your point James. It would be nice to have a single standard just for par. But with certain folks flat refusal to comprehend par 2s, having multiple skill levels to adjust par (according to a single standard) seems like a reasonable and effective alternative.

You have to admit having a course with an SSA of 42 have a posted par of 54 while another course with an SSA of 55 has a posted par of 54 is pointless (it also happens to be what we have right at this moment). And I am not even saying that SSA should be the definition of Par, just a tool in helping to validate pars.

What would you suggest?

Agreed.......I was more thinking on the lines of what is on the sign.

The fewer qualifiers I need to use in the conversation, the better. Some qualifiers, of course, are inevitable, but creating different pars based on skill level is completely unnecessary and pretty much sucks the meaning out of the word.

I'm pretty much a novice on this topic, but it seems pretty straightforward (to me at least) how a par for a hole is determined. All I need to know is what skill level defines par.

After that, we can compare courses with a concept akin to slope, which I really don't understand, but assume it is simply a way to compare course pars in a meaningful way. You know, to let people know how hardor easy a course is relative to a meaningful standard (the concept of par of course).

By the way, I also don't believe in par 2s. That discussion belongs in design class, not assigning par class.

You've missed a lot of the discussion. Bottom line, unless you define a Rec player as the "par standard" you'll have par 2s. So, you either get vastly inflated pars or par 2s, neither which would be sensible or good for the sport. In this case, borrowing from ball golf with their pars for different levels, we've done the same with four defined player skill levels for four course design levels, each with their par guidelines. It all hangs together.

Bottom line, unless you define a Rec player as the "par standard" you'll have par 2s.



That is simply a declaration created by people's insistence that SSA is the true meaning of "par." There is absolutely nothing that prevents a hole of SSA 2.4 from being a par 3; it's just the path y'all have chosen.


It all hangs together.


If y'all are proposing that the rec. players have rec. tees and the "par" is based on the rec skill level and you will use a similar methodology for other skill levels, then at the end of the day, what have you accomplished? You have abandoned the meaning of par and denied people a meaningful way to compare their skills. For what reason, to make everyone feel good about their game?

After all this is done, a future endeavor will be needed to create the simplist way for players to compare their ability to one another. You know, an endeavor that actually embraces the concept of par.

"Par" means average for the skill level of the players involved. What could be more consistent than to have standards for specific skill levels? The ball golf phrase that par is for expert play is not used for skill levels other than expert women and expert men. Appropriate skill standards are used for par from the other tees (Sr, Jr, Championship)

That may be true in ball golf, but I've never heard of a ball golf course where I (with my skill level) can shoot par.

If this truly is the case (although it doesn't fit with my limited experience on the links), then it seems as if we have a great opportunity to create a concept of "par" that far surpasses ball golf.

To have any useful meaning, par must relate to a set standard skill level, not "for the skill level of the players involved."

James, if you go to your local BG course and play from the red tees it has the same par as the white, blue and Gold. Now, if a Pro came and played from the red tees those pars prob dont fit to well for him do they? Now reverse that, if the red player plays from the golds that is not gonna fit either.

What you are suggesting (from my understanding) is that all pars from all tees be set for a one certain level instead of being set for the level they are intended for. It makes no since if you think about it.

It makes perfect sense.

I still don't buy the assertion that "pars in ball golf are set for the skill level of the player." Like I've said before, I have never seen a ball golf course where the par was set for someone of my skill level. In y'alls system of using an SSA concept was used in ball golf for people of my skill level, there would be 150 yard par 5s. These just don't exist.

No, pars are set for the Expert skill level in BG....the other tees are strategically placed in shorter positions to make par fit for those levels.

Could you go out and shoot par from the Red tees on your local course , probably not. But it takes alot more practice to get good at BG then it does for DG plus the fact that putting is harder across the board.

Real world example for you:

A local course here Babe Zaharias BG Course hole number 1 is a Par 4 approximatly 390yards from the back tees (blue tees). When I first started playing BG when I was 12yrs Old teeing back there was impossible. There is a canal that runs at an angle towards the basket that you have to carry over about 150 yards to make the fairway at the closest point. Being 12 I was not supposed to play those really anyway, I should be playing the Red tees there, so I did.

The red tee is located right at the shortest point possible to clear the water from the Blues and whites. That is 150 yards closer then the Blue tees. The hole from the Red tee is only 240 yards. Someone who plays at the blue tee level this is hardly a par four from the Red. The tee was put in for each level based on the Par the hole is intended to play at . If it were set according to what a Blue level player shoots then they would have 2 different pars on that hole because the Red is only a Par 3 for Blue players.

No, pars are set for the Expert skill level in BG....the other tees are strategically placed in shorter positions to make par fit for those levels.



Well, this statement is a horse of a different color.

Is it a fact that ball golf really doesn't set par by skill level? Don't they assume how many shots it takes to get to the green and two to hole out? The number of shots that they assume it takes to get to the green and the number of putts it takes to hole out (two) are based on a certain skill level.

Otherwise, if they actually did set pars for different skill levels, they would change the assumed number of shots it takes to get to the green and assume three, four or five putts to hole out.

If they were like us, they could just take the average score for a certain skill level (SSA concept) and determine pars from there. Then, they would truly have 150 yard par sixes for lousy golfers.

So, to summarize, they really don't have different par determinations based on skill levels. They may have different tees to help chumps get closer to par, they may have pars based on age or gender, but they certainly do not have pars by skill level. Why not? Because it would butcher the meaning of par.

You'll have to prove that with sufficient event data, not just your opinion. Five shots is the difference between courses that are mostly wooded versus almost wide open for the same length. Even 40mph winds will not affect scores on a course by more than about 4 shots. One thing that offsets loss of foliage is colder temperatures where discs do not fly as far. So, even with less foliage, players will have to throw harder for the same distance and may not reach some holes they do in the summer when temps are 25 degrees.



You should look at the scores for our minis. The 1st week -4 won the open on the Wilmont and +2 won the next weekend due to the wind. The same happened on the Powell with -4 winning the 1st week and +3 on a windy day.

We can in Disc Golf design courses for an Expert player and then strategically insert easier tees to make them fit the Par for that hole that was origianlly based on Expert play.

Then what do you do with the near 2000 courses that are already out there? Since, in most cases, ripping the course down and redesigning it for Expert players and then inserting easier tees would be very costly and virtually impossible. The best logical solution imo is to figure out which skill level these existing courses designs better fit to. Figure par to that level and then you have something that actually means somehting and is comparable to other courses.

If you have a Gold(1000) Par 54 and you average Par and your friend plays a White(900) Par 54 and he averages Par then you know that you are pretty close to 10 strokes better then him on average.

thank you, thank you, thank you. you have it 100% correct. there is no reason to re-define the term "par" from the generally acknowledged definition of par.

scott, for those easier courses, the course record would suffice as a means to determine relative difficulty. or if you are a maverick, some words might be all that is necessary.

james, could you please right a letter on my behalf to the PA state psychiatric board...i told them i wasn't crazy.

scott, for those easier courses, the course record would suffice as a means to determine relative difficulty. or if you are a maverick, some words might be all that is necessary



That is how it is done right now.

So, can I assume you are happy with the way things are right now? If so, it seems you are in the minority.

By the way, I also don't believe in par 2s. That discussion belongs in design class, not assigning par class.



Actually I am starting to lean that way myself, though the dilema of how to handle such courses with a single par standard that does not vary according to skill level persists even without par 2s. That is if par is to have any meaning as far as handicapping or our rules is concerned.

Believe me, I wish it were a simple matter; unfortunately it will take more than a one-liner rule to accomplish all the things we hope it will.

Actually, one can use some form of SSA in relation to the course's par to determine how difficult par is to acheive at a course. That measure can then be used to compare courses.

Basically, I don't think the existence of poorly designed or outdated courses needs to be "corrected" by changing the concept of par. They are what they are: easy courses for higher skilled players to break par and easier courses for lower skilled players to approach par.

Par from the Red tees on a BG course is the same as Par on the Gold yet that Par wouldnt fit if a Gold player played from the Red tees.

All I am saying is to basically look at all the existing courses on Earth like they actually have Expert level tees even though they may not. Look at the tees that are actually there as the easier tees. This could be White tees, or Red or whatever they fit best to (can use SSA to help in determining this). Now remove the imaginary Expert tees from your head and there you have it. Par is the same as the ficticious Expert tees, the expert tees just arent there.

Perhaps someone will provide a more full answer to this, but basically when we have a par that has known, meaning based on the single standard of a Scratch Disc Golfer, adjusting it to known skill levels like GOLD, BLUE, WHITE and RED, does not undo the benefit of the single standard.

Will folks not in the know about the Scratch Disc Golfer or the Skill Level Standards be somewhat confused? Perhaps. But no more than the guy shooting a 72 from the Reds thinking he has tied the golfer shooting a 72 from the Blues on a BG course.

Again, so long as the standards are firm and understandable then par can have meaning and use. Alternatively, so long as it is a wishy washy abstraction with a different meaning per each course designer or player it will remain, as now, meaningless and more importantly, useless.

Perhaps someone will provide a more full answer to this, but basically when we have a par that has known, meaning based on the single standard of a Scratch Disc Golfer, adjusting it to known skill levels like GOLD, BLUE, WHITE and RED, does not undo the benefit of the single standard.



I don't understand this, at all. You have a known standard, and then you apply it to every golf hole, not adjust it to known skill levels. You apply that same standard to holes with blue tees, holes with gold tees, holes with red tees, whatever.

After applying that standard to the holes, each set of tees (a course) will have a par for that course. Some set of tees will have a lower par than others. If one wanted to compare scores shot from different set of tees, one would need to use some concept of slope, or course difficulty in relation to par, to make the comparison.

This concept of par is not wishy washy; it need not vary from designer to designer; and can be used in conjunction with a course difficulty rating (in relation to par) to help people know how well they played, which is one of the great benefits of the par concept.

There is no standard that works and every course wouldn't necessarily have a course with that set of tees. Let's say Blue was used as THE par standard. On the many short courses with Red tees, you would apply the Blue standard and maybe half the holes would have scoring averages under 2.5 for blue. With no par 2s, you end up with artificially high par for the course and the holes would get poor evaluations even though they weren't designed for the blue skill level, but in fact were good holes for Red. Only courses designed for blue level would get good evaluations because only about half of the holes on a course will be suitable for other skill levels if they are properly designed for a specific skill level.

Skill level, course design and par are intertwined and we now have the tools to do a better job with ratings data and those who are willing to track actual scoring data once a course is in the ground. In that regard, we are ahead of ball golf. They have little useful data for course assessment and have admitted so. They are trapped in an outdated process and can't escape for a variety of reasons similar to most of us being forever tied to the QWERTY keyboard.

A couple of things. I sense that the concept of par is being used (abused IMO) to address both perceived problems with course design or as an aid in a course evaluation system. I suspect this is the heart of the problem.

Whether a hole is well-designed for 1,000 rated player or well-designed for a 900 is completely independent of par. IMO, there are two measures that are used to evaluate a hole: is it fair and does it generate an acceptable spread. Other factors such as scenery, types of shots required, etc. are legitimate, but secondary. Interestingly, a hole's par never enters into this evaluation.

A local course designer and I discussed whether hole 16 at The Beast in Waco was a par 4 or 5. We both concluded that the hole's par was irrelevant because the hole was fair and generated a wide spread. In other words, we can easily evaluate the hole without a clear understanding of its par.

I'll agree that skill level and course design are intertwined. A course designer must know the skill levels he is designing for in order to evaluate fairness and whether his creation will generate a spread. However, par is pretty much like a title to a work of art; it is an afterthought. Noone appreciates a painting because of its title.

I will agree that our ratings concept is superior to the measures used in ball golf, and for that, all those involved should be proud, but ratings cannot be calculated for the weekend Joe. Thus we should embrace an inferior measuring system of par and course difficulty in relation to par. What y'all are proposing will make measuring performance (or one's ability) in the abscence of ratings much more confusing and difficult.

51 is still a better score than 52 and that is better than 53 on the same course at the same time. That absolute measurement of performance is unchanged regardless of all these par shenanigans.

Nothing wrong with par conversion charts at the pro shop. In ball golf, the handicap guidelines for women playing the back blue tees and men playing the shorter red tees are available but usually not on the scorecard. Maybe we'll pull together a par conversion chart available for downlaod that will allow players to convert the Blue par of 56 to what Red level players should expect for scores.



Now there's a good idea. For this all to make sense, there has to be easy conversion and posted conversion. Most courses will have 950 players playing from 900 tees and vice-versa.

It seems at first an easy conversion. 5 strokes per division per round? I think the course difficulty makes for a "compression" factor, just like in the ratings. This would throw the simple 5 strokes rule off a bit sometimes.

Bottom line is that we need to focus on SSA. Post it everywhere. If there are easy ways to determine SSA's without having to have a PDGA event, let's seriously promote this. What if the first tee sign listed (for each set of tees) the SSA for each skill level? You could highlight the skill level specific to that set of tees. Perhaps even include up to 2 or 3 pin settings if there is a big difference in their difficulty.

Most courses have almost all par 2.5-3.5 type holes. Posting par for these type courses might be lacking..... 3, 3, 3, 3, 3. Espescially when you consider that when you change tees, you are changing skill levels also, so the holes are still par 3, 3, 3, 3, 3. Better would be to include the hole SSA (gold). Tee sign could say SSA 2.63. An easy conversion factor could be made specific to any player's rating. For example, an 892 rated player would add .60 per hole. Then the player would know that getting a 3 on the hole would be better than average.

If on the other hand you are playing a course with multiple par 4's and 5's... labeling each skill level pad with the par ( same par for each skill level ) on the tee sign of these holes would be cool. The trick would be getting the scoring averages to be close (Gold players from the back tees average 4.2 on a hole at the same time Red players average 4.2 from the shortest tees).

I've heard it said more than once that comparing SSA to course par gives players an idea of how difficult the course is. That is a truly baffling statement. SSA tells you everything about how difficult a course is, regardless of par. 2 other things that explain the SSA are course lenth and challenge factor (foliage, elevation, etc.). The SSA is the true, single measure of difficulty though. Comparing the SSA to course par, to me, only tells me how misjudged the par was when it was set. If Par is set for courses without using the SSA system (for several divisions, if necessary), things are going to get really confusing. And redundant. Why have course par substantially different from the SSA? That's when the par loses it's meaning for me.

Are ball golf tees with different lengths, but the same par, based on different skill levels? Yes, they are. The important difference is that maybe 50% of disc golfers can play at a red level or better. Only about 5% can shoot par or better from red in golf (lady or otherwise). Where we use 850, 900, 950, & 1000, their comparable DG ratings for their tees would be something like 975, 1000, 1025, 1050. I like the way we do it though, because our game doesn't have as many people and competition hasn't spread out as much as in golf. Also, our courses aren't long or tough enough to promote the larger scores and score differences you see in golf. Yet ...

The relationship of scoring average for a skill level to par for that skill level has more to do with design issues than difficulty. In theory, the scoring average for a course could be almost 9 shots lower or higher than the par. At the extremes, if all holes have a scoring average of 2.51, the course average would be 45.18 with par of 54. If all holes averaged 3.49, the course average would be 62.82 and still with a par of 54. It's extremely more likely that the scoring average on any course will be less than par meaning it will be "easier" to shoot par. The closer the scoring average gets to the par value, the better the balance of holes on the course. It is also more likely to happen on longer courses with a lot of trees like Nockamixon where more holes have balanced scoring spreads on either side of the par value.

At the extremes, if all holes have a scoring average of 2.51, the course average would be 45.18 with par of 54. If all holes averaged 3.49, the course average would be 62.82 and still with a par of 54.


Well, the big mistake in this example (and I mean it's a terrific one) is that you would be using a statistical measurement, which changes over time, to assign par, which should stay constant from the beginning (unless the course design is modified).

If you use stats in this way, and the next batch of stats happens to move hole averages from 3.49 to 3.51, someone will get the bright idea to use that data to re-label par signs up to 4, only to have to re-label those signs back down to 3 again the time after that when the average drops back to 3.49.

This see-sawing of par on holes that are statistically halfway between 3 and 4 would be ridiculous.

Perhaps you would say that such a hole design is poor, that the hole should be re-designed to strongly favor either a score of 3 or 4. But if the score spread is acceptable, and the only problem with the hole is its score average falls midway between integers, then I say there's no problem, so long as you're not obsessively compelled to change par signs every time a statistical decimal point flickers.

Please: set par, keep it there, and keep doing your stats, but quit confusing the two. A par is not a stat, and a stat should not be made into par.

Par should be an assignment made at the beginning by the designer to show how he intends a hole to play, before stats for that hole even exist. (We don't put par TBD signs up, do we?) Once assigned, par should be left alone. We arrive, we play the course, and we measure our performance against par. We do not measure par against us! If I consistently shoot 5 under par at a course, I don't say I'm shooting par and the course is 5 over.

Let stats inform designers if their intentions for par are met. Let them use that information to inform their next course design, or modify their current design by introducing a tree here or adding an OB line there. But don't ask us players to care about par if year after year, a course can stay the same, but its par can change as stats are collected and signs are updated.

"I used to throw 2 under when this course was new, but now I throw 1 over."

"What happened to your game?"

"I got better, actually."

"So has the course gotten more difficult?"

"No, the course plays the same. The par signs are different..."

James, I'm not sure I can agree with you here.
"However, par is pretty much like a title to a work of art; it is an afterthought. No one appreciates a painting because of its title".

Ive designed almost 30 disc golf courses, but only recently I became so aware of the need for assigning par to the course as well as a clear definition of the type of course (recreational, competitive or championship).
In my opinion, those course designers who see it as an after thought, may not be designing state of the art disc golf courses and not having par on the signs and scorecards doesnt help the newer players.
Par is a lot more important to these newer players who have played ball golf before disc golf than to most disc golf only players!

To all of you who are against par 2's keep reminding chuck how bad it is for the legitamacy and integrity of our "sport"
/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

While the SSA for a hole may teeter up or down over x.5, anyone with any sense at all knows better then to go changing the par everytime this happens. If SSA or hole forecasters show a hole to be a cusp hole near x.5 then the designer should set par for that hole according to how he envisions the hole to be played and/or as a hole to help adjust the overall par to fit better to the actual scoring averages on the course. ( ex. WCP shows the course at 58....you have two holes that are cusp holes, if you round down on those holes then overall par comes out to 57...you could go ahead and label one of them to the higher par to bump the course par up to 58)

Where have you seen me support par 2s in the recent discussion? Holes with scoring averages under 2.5 are holes that either need redesign to become better par 3s or are part of a course that is more appropriate for the next lower skill level. On the other hand, the miniature golf industry makes a pile more money than DG and they don't suffer an image problem having par 2s. Who's to say we shouldn't emulate that direction? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And Paul, you completely missed the point of my post which had to do with whether the difference between scoring average for the whole course (not hole) and the par has any bearing on course difficulty. It had nothing to do with individual hole scoreing and setting pars.

As far as setting par for individual holes and making changes, look upthread where I posted the sequence for setting and adjusting par (only if needed) on holes during the design cycle. Some designers miss their intended scoring pattern on some holes more than others. But many don't even make the effort to confirm their work with actual scoring information once the course is done.

Chuck,
I know it seems like I'm singling you out at times, But if I'm not mistaken you are asking people to recognize holes as par 2's and label them as so.
You are even posing the question in your last email as to something you advocate.

Once people start doing this and they go on signs and cards it will be hard to reverse as is the case right now with the PDGA calling everything par 3's for the last 20 years.

I know you intentions for this are good and may be to even eliminate par 2's in the end, but labeling anything a par 2 at this time would not be the best route!
This is just my opinion, but it appears most agree!

I have not been asking people to label holes par 2s. Either change the design if the scoring average is less than say 2.4 (to be more liberal). Or, if it's hopeless because there are too many on the course, change the par reference to a lower appropriate skill level for the whole course to eliminate them.

The only place I'll advocate par 2s is a very limited exception. That's at Pro Worlds when courses are used that are not Gold caliber and can't be boosted sufficiently to that level. Each year, we're getting better at having suitable courses or adjusting them for Gold level so it's becoming less of a problem. If one or two holes are under 2.5, look the other way and call them par 3s, which we've done. It's more for courses like Rum Village in 1996 where more than half the course was holes with scoring averages as low as 2.2 for Gold players. Although I had fun playing that course, let's hope we're beyond that style of pitch and putt for future Pro Worlds.

I think Chuck is more or less agreeing with your earlier statement, David, that courses should have their par set according to the skill level for which they were designed. If that is done then having to ever post a "Par 2" on a tee sign should be as rare as posting a "Par 6".

If a hole has an SSA of 2.4 and the course SSA is 51, then this is not a GOLD level course. If you designate it as a BLUE level course then you have several strokes to play with to keep the overall par above 54 (and avoid posting any "Par 2s"). This is possible all the way down to RED level courses. The point is that the Par posted on the holes and for the course would have a direct relationship to a known and fixed standard: "Scratch Disc Golf". Handicapping would be possible for not only folks with PDGA Ratings, but for anyone playing the course.

James would like us to have only one standard for a single skill level. Which though original, considering BG does not even do that, would negate the benefits of a par system that will not only set standards for future designs but allow for backward compatibility with existing courses.

Paul and I were about a stones throw away from establishing a decent system over a year ago, but it unravelled when we couldn't settle on a corrective variable.

I wish we could all get in a room somewhere and nail this down, because I suspect that we are all a lot closer to each others end game than we think. Even my anarchist friend KLab.

Note: I can envision for many existing courses that they do not have a uniform skill color set of 9 or 18 holes, but rather that they have a mix ranging from WHITE to GOLD, but let's not go there, we need to settle on a par standard first.

My endgame would be to go to a course and play either the BLUE or GOLD tees and shoot better than my rating on them. Playing WHITE or RED tees would not be anywhere near as enjoyable or challenging (and in my opinion are completely unacceptable for Open or Masters class play at PDGA events).

I think the docs related to design and par already are where we want to be and reflect your summary just posted. David prefers Championship, Competitive and Recreational which is what we used in the Course Designers group in the 90s. They are now Gold, Blue and Red, respectively to get a more neutral designation and avoid the implication that "champions" can't be found playing Blue or Red tees.

I'm glad to hear it. The challenge remains how exactly do we set par for each skill level though. Do you have guidelines for that?

i.e.: A course has a known SSA of 49. If I set it's skill level at BLUE what options do I have as far as setting a par that will have verifiable meaning to other skill levels? Is the difference between 49 and 54, giving you 6 extra strokes to work with in setting a BLUE PAR, less, more, why?

Thanks.

If the course was designed for Blue, it should already have Blue pars set for the holes if the procedure I decribed above was followed. If it's an existing course, the indicated chart should be used as a starting point to assign appropriate pars for each hole. If the course has an SSA, that means scorecards might be available. Scoring spreads and averages can be generated and adjusted by rating to Blue level. This would help tweak the par numbers if necessary or indicate which holes might be better if changed.

Scoring spreads and averages can be generated and adjusted by rating to Blue level.



Precisely how would one do that? Thanks.

You have the scorecards and the ratings of the players. There's a good chance you'll be able to select a mix of players that average pretty close to 950. If it's somewhat or a lot, the process in the Excel spreadsheet describes how to adjust numbers from one rating to 1000 rating. To adjust to another rating like 950 is a simple interpolation.

Nothing wrong with par conversion charts at the pro shop. In ball golf, the handicap guidelines for women playing the back blue tees and men playing the shorter red tees are available but usually not on the scorecard. Maybe we'll pull together a par conversion chart available for downlaod that will allow players to convert the Blue par of 56 to what Red level players should expect for scores.



Now there's a good idea. For this all to make sense, there has to be easy conversion and posted conversion. Most courses will have 950 players playing from 900 tees and vice-versa.

It seems at first an easy conversion. 5 strokes per division per round? I think the course difficulty makes for a "compression" factor, just like in the ratings. This would throw the simple 5 strokes rule off a bit sometimes.

Bottom line is that we need to focus on SSA. Post it everywhere. If there are easy ways to determine SSA's without having to have a PDGA event, let's seriously promote this. What if the first tee sign listed (for each set of tees) the SSA for each skill level? You could highlight the skill level specific to that set of tees. Perhaps even include up to 2 or 3 pin settings if there is a big difference in their difficulty.

Most courses have almost all par 2.5-3.5 type holes. Posting par for these type courses might be lacking..... 3, 3, 3, 3, 3. Espescially when you consider that when you change tees, you are changing skill levels also, so the holes are still par 3, 3, 3, 3, 3. Better would be to include the hole SSA (gold). Tee sign could say SSA 2.63. An easy conversion factor could be made specific to any player's rating. For example, an 892 rated player would add .60 per hole. Then the player would know that getting a 3 on the hole would be better than average.

If on the other hand you are playing a course with multiple par 4's and 5's... labeling each skill level pad with the par ( same par for each skill level ) on the tee sign of these holes would be cool. The trick would be getting the scoring averages to be close (Gold players from the back tees average 4.2 on a hole at the same time Red players average 4.2 from the shortest tees).

I've heard it said more than once that comparing SSA to course par gives players an idea of how difficult the course is. That is a truly baffling statement. SSA tells you everything about how difficult a course is, regardless of par. 2 other things that explain the SSA are course lenth and challenge factor (foliage, elevation, etc.). The SSA is the true, single measure of difficulty though. Comparing the SSA to course par, to me, only tells me how misjudged the par was when it was set. If Par is set for courses without using the SSA system (for several divisions, if necessary), things are going to get really confusing. And redundant. Why have course par substantially different from the SSA? That's when the par loses it's meaning for me.

Are ball golf tees with different lengths, but the same par, based on different skill levels? Yes, they are. The important difference is that maybe 50% of disc golfers can play at a red level or better. Only about 5% can shoot par or better from red in golf (lady or otherwise). Where we use 850, 900, 950, & 1000, their comparable DG ratings for their tees would be something like 975, 1000, 1025, 1050. I like the way we do it though, because our game doesn't have as many people and competition hasn't spread out as much as in golf. Also, our courses aren't long or tough enough to promote the larger scores and score differences you see in golf. Yet ...





Anyone agree / disagree with this direction on par?

Basically, I think that for par to have any value, there has to be a consistent, universal method for establishing it. The SSA method seems to be the only way that offers this without too much confusion over details. What is the disadvantage with using SSA? You can use it for differnent skill levels, it is consistent enough...

Statistical analysis is a great tool to see how well a course designer created the appropriate level of challenge for the intended user on each hole and for the course overall.

On a ball golf course 320 yards is a short par 4 for pro players. No one will argue against that. If, however, that 320 yard hole has a wide fairway, no bunkers, and a big, flat green, under moderate winds a pro tournament field will average about 3.2. This does not prove that the hole is a par 3, but reflects a poorly designed hole for that user group. (The same hole on a $12 goat track would be fine)

I think we're making big strides with the gold/blue/white/red system and we do need to get designers commited to designing courses for particular skill levels. We've got a course going in the ground soon in Citrus County, FL and our two tees are blue/white. If we could put in three tees there I'd go blue/white/red.

It will be great to see more courses labelled so that players can come and see for instance that the gold tees require shots from 250-425 ft., the blue 200-400 ft, white 200-330 ft., and red 150-270 ft. and then pick the appropriate tee for their round. The par is the same for all the tees on each hole.

Although some disagree, I also think it's very important for the par on each hole to stay the same regardless of which basket locations is used. It's very confusing for a new player to walk up to a hole with 4 basket locations with a par 2.5, 3.5, 4, and 4.5. and they're even more confused when they ask Joe Local what the par is on the hole and he says, "all holes are par 3's".

Chuck we may wind up using the terms red, blue and gold along with Rec, Comp and Champ in our coursed design information if it will help PDGA players recognize which type of course it is. Especially if the pdga is going to recognize these labels and thier association.
The colors make perfect since to me as they are the same as Ball golf, but not everyone has played in BG to know the difference.
I like the terms we ( Gateway) are using because they do not need any further explanation.

Since 99.9% of all disc golfers do not have a player rating, they wont understand what 950 means unless it is associated with a scoring number related to the par of the course.

When I'm designing a championship course I'm thinking about how to keep the course and it's relationship to par on each individual hole accurate for the next 50 years or more.
If it is a recreational course I establish a par for someone who is playing for their first time.
The terms rec and Champ seem to be more direct and self explanatory, while Red, Blue and Gold need explaining.

Just my opinion, based on my experiences.

Par for our sport should be as simple as they make it in BG, why would we not immulate it.
how many it takes to get to the green plus 2 not 1.6!
Maybe it's the non-conforming-anti-establishment part of disc golfs past :confused:

I don't have any problem using words along with the colors. As long as the Competitive tees are consistently colored Blue and the Championship colored gold, then players will understand that as they move from course to course.

You aren't going to go too far wrong using shots plus two to set par. But you'll find your pars are inflated relative to what players of the target skill level actually shoot. It will certainly make your players happy. My guess is that reducing the par on three to five holes per course will come closer to matching the scoring average for that skill level of player. Or, to avoid that, you'll find yourself being forced to design holes in much narrower length ranges (mostly at the long end of the proper length for that skill) and reducing the potential variety. it will be much more challenging on open courses than wooded courses where you can get scoring spreads much closer to round number scoring averages.

While the SSA for a hole may teeter up or down over x.5, anyone with any sense at all knows better then to go changing the par everytime this happens.


Three things.

One: I've read some posts where people seem pretty dogmatic about making SSA equal to par.

Two: If teetering around x.5 doesn't cause par signs to change, what do SSA values have to shift by before par signs are changed? And how many stats have to be built up over time before the SSA of a hole becomes stable?

Three: I was responding to Chuck's post, where he made it clear that he thought 2.51 was a par 3, and 3.49 was also a par 3. That means to me that he thinks 2.49 is a par 2 and 3.51 is a par 4. So do you agree with that? 'Cause I don't.


If SSA or hole forecasters show a hole to be a cusp hole near x.5 then the designer should set par for that hole according to how he envisions the hole to be played and/or as a hole to help adjust the overall par to fit better to the actual scoring averages on the course.


Why does the score have to hover near x.5 for the designer to set par in this way? My opinion is the designer sets par in this manner and then par is set no matter what the measurements say afterward. (If he has set par realistically, then sure, stats should be within a throw of par for any given tournament, but if stats say a par 4 plays like a par 5, then I'd be there thinking, wow, that's a really tough par 4. Not, hey, why isn't course maintenance keeping up with the par signs?)


( ex. WCP shows the course at 58....you have two holes that are cusp holes, if you round down on those holes then overall par comes out to 57...you could go ahead and label one of them to the higher par to bump the course par up to 58)


Yes, there are other influences in setting hole pars, and trying to set a more realistic course par could be one of them.

But if the course stats drop back down to 57, then someone is going to say the hole par you artificially elevated should be dropped down again. So I'm thinking just set the hole par where you want it to be forever, and let the stats take care of themselves afterward.

Three things.

One: I've read some posts where people seem pretty dogmatic about making SSA equal to par.

Two: If teetering around x.5 doesn't cause par signs to change, what do SSA values have to shift by before par signs are changed? And how many stats have to be built up over time before the SSA of a hole becomes stable?

Three: I was responding to Chuck's post, where he made it clear that he thought 2.51 was a par 3, and 3.49 was also a par 3. That means to me that he thinks 2.49 is a par 2 and 3.51 is a par 4. So do you agree with that? 'Cause I don't.





SSA is an aid in setting par. Ultimately it is the course designers vision of how a hole should play that sets the Par. By using the SSA or a hole forecaster you can better fit Par to real world averages for a skill level.

I cannot speak for Chuck but I would imagine he has ran into his share of 3.4X holes that he had to use his thoughts of the hole or overall par numbers to decide whether he wanted to label it a Par 3 or 4.


Why does the score have to hover near x.5 for the designer to set par in this way? My opinion is the designer sets par in this manner and then par is set no matter what the measurements say afterward. (If he has set par realistically, then sure, stats should be within a throw of par for any given tournament, but if stats say a par 4 plays like a par 5, then I'd be there thinking, wow, that's a really tough par 4. Not, hey, why isn't course maintenance keeping up with the par signs?)




At some point the course pro or designer has to make a decision whether to change the par for a hole if for whatever reason it just isn't fitting real world numbers. At what point is that, it's really up to that person. But if your 1000 rated players are averaging 3.7 on a hole over a decent amount of time,it is probably time to change it to a Par 4.


Yes, there are other influences in setting hole pars, and trying to set a more realistic course par could be one of them.

But if the course stats drop back down to 57, then someone is going to say the hole par you artificially elevated should be dropped down again. So I'm thinking just set the hole par where you want it to be forever, and let the stats take care of themselves afterward.



Then the designer/course pro has a decision to make. Do i change the par to more accurately reflect the real world scores or not. Personally it would take more then 1 stroke for me to go changing teesigns. Par is not going to match the SSA exactly, it CAN, but likely won't. Like Chuck pointed out earleir, when you use SSA to gauge then assign whole numbers you could possibly end up many strokes difference between SSA and the rounded Par. If all your holes had an SSA of 2.5 the SSA for the course would be 45 yet the Par would be 54.

...Comparing the SSA to course par, to me, only tells me how misjudged the par was when it was set. If Par is set for courses without using the SSA system (for several divisions, if necessary), things are going to get really confusing. And redundant. Why have course par substantially different from the SSA? That's when the par loses it's meaning for me...


Anyone agree / disagree with this direction on par?


I disagree with forcing par to match SSA. I think it's unnecessary and, taken too far, can become confusing. And how do you only take it partway? You are left with not matching SSA, which is the stated objective, so why bother if you don't take it to the extreme of being exact? So I simply disagree with even trying to chase this wild goose.


Basically, I think that for par to have any value, there has to be a consistent, universal method for establishing it. The SSA method seems to be the only way that offers this without too much confusion over details. What is the disadvantage with using SSA?


There are no stats for a course until after you play it for a while. And if there are few tournaments, if any, played on a course, it may be a long while. So even if you use SSAs to set par, you still need something to set par first before SSAs are available. And that I think is the downfall of using SSAs, because I think it's silly to change par on a hole after the stats finally come in. I think you confuse people by changing par signs after they have had history enough to generate stats. Why do that?


You can use it for differnent skill levels, it is consistent enough...


You're using the word "consistent" in a way I don't understand. SSA is not a static thing. It is dynamic. It is a measurement. And this measurement changes with the weather, with disc technology, etc. When a tree falls, it changes. When the fairway grass grows too high, or leaves fall, and the lost disc rule is more of a danger, it changes. When amateurs who are rated too low play a tournament at a course, it changes, versus when pros, whose historic ratings may now be too high, play the same course.

So what is consistent about all this? Consistent means getting a reproducible result. If exactly the same stats are not reproduced time and time again, regardless of conditions, then what is consistent?

SSA is an aid in setting par.


I would amend this to say SSA is an aid in setting par for the next course that is designed, because what you learn from the last course teaches you to do better on the next.

Estimated scoring averages for each skill level have already been prepared in advance by using the downloadable chart. Course designers use more accurate estimating tools. So, par can be set pretty accurately before installing and playing a course.

Getting actual scoring averages after the course goes in just confirms the design or provides feedback where holes might be better if they were adjusted. That's one reason not to install nice signs and cement tees too fast. I've already stated earlier that holes with scoring averages between x.33 and x.66 could go either way depending on the intent of the designer. I don't agree with pure scoring averages being used to set the par or to change it if it fluctuates between x.45 and x.55.

Regarding fluctuation, hole averages fluctuate much less than you might think if you have enough data (100+ numbers). If the whole course varies by 3.6 shots based on wind, that's only 0.2 per hole on average with maybe 0.4 on the more open holes. And that points up another reason why scoring average alone might be misleading. If a hole normally has prevailing winds from the west, it may play more appropriately as a par 4 even if the scoring average was say 3.4 on a calm day.

It is an aid in helping set real pars for an existing course or for new courses where you hold off on setting par til you have aquired some statistical data.

The Course Design commitee has hole forecasters for setting par without any real scores. I have used some of the forecaster charts to set par and aid in distance on a redesign of one of our local courses. Without even having all the documents that the Course design group has I was able to set a white par of 60 on the course. Interestingly enough the SSA came out to a 59 for white level players (900 rated)when I was able to get ratings on it.

I agree that SSA will never exactly match course par. 0-2 strokes different is a lot better than 10+ you could get using the BG par method.

There are alternatives to having PDGA tournaments in setting SSA. Chuck has made an excel spreadsheet some time ago that easily accepts scores from rated players at league events or whatever. The more scores you enter, the more valid the scratch scoring AVERAGE is going to be. More people need to know that this is available.

If people are going to better understand many of the elements of the game such as ratings, course design, and such, SSA should be reinforced. What better way of doing that then posting it on tee signs, course directory entries, web sites, etc. Conversions or postings for different skill levels is easily possible.

If course par is substantially different than SSA, it's not only confusing, but it takes away from the SSA. Players are trying to shoot a number that has little reflection of the course's difficulty. The SSA has this already. Par is what is expected of expert play. SSA is exactly that.

While it's tough to do in practice, balancing hole averages is a good thing to do when setting par. Also difficult to do well on non-ideal ground is setting par close to whole numbers. There is always going to be "tweener" holes. Sometimes they are the best option for a particular hole. If you keep their number low, however, you won't get anywhere close to 9 strokes difference between course par and SSA. 2 to 3 max and less if you round holes in th .4 to .6 either direction you want in order to balance the course par.

Im sorry, i just checked and the Scoring Average was 61 not 59 for white level. I knew it was one stroke off from the par, was just thinking the wrong way.

In the spirit of keeping it simple; par according to the PDGA system is set by the average score of a Scratch Disc Golfer (a player with a PDGA Player Rating of 1000).

This will allow for a uniform and statistically verifiable par not just for GOLD or Championship level courses but for BLUE (Competitive), WHITE and RED (Recreational) level courses.

The expertise of the course designer/pro will still come into play as they will "necessarily" have to decide which way is best to round a holes par while still maintaining statistical adherence to the courses overall SSA.

If in their opinion a hole really needs to be a par 3 in order to remain a uniform GOLD or BLUE level course but the Scratch Score Average (SSA) is 2.3 then they face the challenge of beefing up that hole to have a higher SSA and actually play like a par 3. If however the course plays like a GOLD par 58 then that course pro could reasonably assign that hole as a par 3 and adjust other holes to keep the overall par at 58.

If in that same situation the course par is GOLD 51, then stretching 3 holes to be par 3s would likely not be advisable or acceptable for handicapping or for their to be a valid PDGA par for the overall course. In such cases the course should likely be relabeled as a BLUE course with a par above 54 and those holes will be able to easily and statistically verifiably labeled as par 3s while maintaining a par that directly and statistically relates to all other courses using the PDGA system.

Recently I have come to agree with folks like Kevin Laboski and Dave Dunipace that a hole you can't birdie is next to pointless. What this means for me is that holes that have an SSA of 2.2 (since I am a BLUE level player) are just about worthless to play and need to be redesigned on BLUE level courses and certainly so for GOLD level courses so that a 2 represents a birdie not shooting the average of a Scratch Disc Golfer.

In review, disc golf's 1000 Rated Golfer or Scratch Disc Golfer is our standard of an expert disc golfer, and Scratch Score Average is the average that expert is expected to shoot on a course or even hole. This is the standard for par for the PDGA. Now there are a ton of courses with all sorts of mixed tees and pins out there that will need to figure out what they really have as far as par. Perhaps some GOLD courses will need to change the designation to a BLUE course, or BLUE to WHITE or even to RED. Perhaps some of the holes on a GOLD course better fit the BLUE layout and vice versa. The point is that we finally have the tools necessary to untangle the mess and provide uniform, meaningful and most importantly useful pars for all disc golf courses everywhere.

This in my opinion is a significant step forward for our sport as a whole and the kudos for Chuck Kennedy and the PDGA Ratings Committee continues to grow.

Now what is left is to educate and implement. No longer can a course just up and call itself a GOLD or Championship level course, it will need to prove it, because if it isn�t it will be immediately and glaringly obvious to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of our standard of par.

In the spirit of keeping it simple; par according to the PDGA system is set by the average score of a Scratch Disc Golfer (a player with a PDGA Player Rating of 1000).

This will allow for a uniform and statistically verifiable par not just for GOLD or Championship level courses but for BLUE (Competitive), WHITE and RED (Recreational) level courses.

The expertise of the course designer/pro will still come into play as they will "necessarily" have to decide which way is best to round a holes par while still maintaining statistical adherence to the courses overall SSA.

If in their opinion a hole really needs to be a par 3 in order to remain a uniform GOLD or BLUE level course but the Scratch Score Average (SSA) is 2.3 then they face the challenge of beefing up that hole to have a higher SSA and actually play like a par 3. If however the course plays like a GOLD par 58 then that course pro could reasonably assign that hole as a par 3 and adjust other holes to keep the overall par at 58.

If in that same situation the course par is GOLD 51, then stretching 3 holes to be par 3s would likely not be advisable or acceptable for handicapping or for their to be a valid PDGA par for the overall course. In such cases the course should likely be relabeled as a BLUE course with a par above 54 and those holes will be able to easily and statistically verifiably labeled as par 3s while maintaining a par that directly and statistically relates to all other courses using the PDGA system.

Recently I have come to agree with folks like Kevin Laboski and Dave Dunipace that a hole you can't birdie is next to pointless. What this means for me is that holes that have an SSA of 2.2 (since I am a BLUE level player) are just about worthless to play and need to be redesigned on BLUE level courses and certainly so for GOLD level courses so that a 2 represents a birdie not shooting the average of a Scratch Disc Golfer.

In review, disc golf's 1000 Rated Golfer or Scratch Disc Golfer is our standard of an expert disc golfer, and Scratch Score Average is the average that expert is expected to shoot on a course or even hole. This is the standard for par for the PDGA. Now there are a ton of courses with all sorts of mixed tees and pins out there that will need to figure out what they really have as far as par. Perhaps some GOLD courses will need to change the designation to a BLUE course, or BLUE to WHITE or even to RED. Perhaps some of the holes on a GOLD course better fit the BLUE layout and vice versa. The point is that we finally have the tools necessary to untangle the mess and provide uniform, meaningful and most importantly useful pars for all disc golf courses everywhere.

This in my opinion is a significant step forward for our sport as a whole and the kudos for Chuck Kennedy and the PDGA Ratings Committee continues to grow.

Now what is left is to educate and implement. No longer can a course just up and call itself a GOLD or Championship level course, it will need to prove it, because if it isn�t it will be immediately and glaringly obvious to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of our standard of par.

I am continually baffled by this discussion. What Nick just said. Things like

"In the spirit of keeping it simple; par according to the PDGA system is set by the average score of a Scratch Disc Golfer (a player with a PDGA Player Rating of 1000)."

make total sense if it is done with a common sense method, rather than a statistical method.

and

"Now there are a ton of courses with all sorts of mixed tees and pins out there that will need to figure out what they really have as far as par. Perhaps some GOLD courses will need to change the designation to a BLUE course, or BLUE to WHITE or even to RED. Perhaps some of the holes on a GOLD course better fit the BLUE layout and vice versa. The point is that we finally have the tools necessary to untangle the mess and provide uniform, meaningful and most importantly useful pars for all disc golf courses everywhere."

This make sense. But this is totally different from what Chuck says. What is it that y'all are doing. Chuck talks about Blue and Red and Gold pars , par being calculated from the SSA of those levels, I presume. You sound like you are agreeing that there needs to be Red, Blue, and Gold layouts , but the method for determining pars from each of those layouts is based on a 1,000 rated standard skill level. Par is always calculated the same way. Chuck and co. can then use their fancy statistics on scoring distributions to judge whether each tee is blue, green, yellow, etc.

By the way Chuck, IMO, you too easily discount PaulM's observation about changing SSAs. It is dynamic, and from a purely theoretical standpoint, it is a big problem for this philosphy.

Additionally, we need to be clear that an SSA of 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, etc. DOES NOT mean the hole is poorly designed and needs tweaking. Analysis of a hole's worth has absolutely nothing to do with par, or SSA.

Fortunately, there aren't too many courses with a Gold designation. And frankly, there shouldn't be, at least for public courses, since the average number of Gold players in a whole state averages around 10 players. I would hope designers focus on Blue courses as the standard for regular play but keep in mind the option for longer (usually but could be trickier) Gold temp tees if the space is available, so the course can be set up for Championship play as needed. My ideal public course would have cement tees for Blue and Red and marked positions for several additional Gold tees. For private courses, whatever the owner wants. But if it's pay for play, more tee and pin sets provide more variety and serve more customers if the space is available.

JM: By the way Chuck, IMO, you too easily discount PaulM's observation about changing SSAs. It is dynamic, and from a purely theoretical standpoint, it is a big problem for this philosphy.
CK: SSAs fluctuate primarily due to weather. If you have the same weather and multiple sets of 100 scores, the numbers are very stable with less than 1 shot variance per round. That translates to very little fluctuation per hole with 1 shot divided by 18 or less than 0.1 variance per hole. There can be more score variance among pin placements on a ball golf green than SSA calcs per hole in DG.

JM: Additionally, we need to be clear that an SSA of 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, etc. DOES NOT mean the hole is poorly designed and needs tweaking. Analysis of a hole's worth has absolutely nothing to do with par, or SSA.
CK: I've always agreed with this. In fact, holes with scores between x.3 and x.7 are never going to be problems for scoring spread as long as the way the spread is achieved is fair (i.e. not a pinball alley). However, Nick won't like a lot of "good" holes in the 3.25-3.45 range because these are holes with good spread but very few birdies if they are called par 3s. Fortunately, there usually aren't a lot of these on any course unless it's heavily wooded.

* * *
SSA would rarely be used for setting par. First, the par chart would be used when the course is set up. Then, once scores were available, unless it's one of the few Gold courses, the scores are more likely going to be analyzed based on the skill level of the tees, more likely Blue or Red, with even more White than Gold tees being out there.

Why do many people seem to have a problem with course par being based on the level of player that would find the course challenging ?

If I see a course par listed as Red(or Rec)-54, there are 2 things I assume:
1) The course should be appropriate for beginner level players.
2) I should be able to shoot well under par.

Those assumptions may prove incorrect, but probably not.
If I see a Blue(Comp)-60 course, I know I will be challenged (as a 920ish player) and probably play around par.

I would like to keep a level between the Blue and Red to indicate a course that is designed to be challenging ( tougher than a Rec course, but not quite long enough for a blue course) but not quite a Blue course. Quite a few in my area should fall into this area. Though they are playable by rec players, they are not designed for them, and they are really a little easy for the 950+ players.

I think you'll find a lot of older courses will fall in the White skill level range. They're around 4500'-5500' length and usually would have several holes where locals have a shot dialed with a specific disc for an almost automatic 2. I don't think you'll see as many new courses with White level. Blue is the "new" White. However, it's the perfect second set of tees for the few places where enough space and rationale for a Gold course might be justified.

What is the disadvantage with using SSA?...



Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:

Using actual SSA numbers encounters various problems. However, using estimated SSA from tools such as the Hole Forecaster (only available to designers who are members of the DGCD) or charts such as the �Estimated hole scoring averages for each player level based on length� can overcome most of these difficulties. Since these tools only give estimates there is a margin of error, but this is within tolerable limits of expected variation. Using estimated score averages the holes that give the most concern are those on the boundary between pars such as 3/4 or 4/5.

Using actual SSA is problematic for the following reasons:

1) Courses that have had many tournaments have multiple SSAs based on varying layouts. How can you come up with just one number for SSA? Do you take the most recent? or do you average all those with the same layout? You also have to know the layouts used and they are often not very well described.

2) What do you do about courses that don�t even have any SSA because they�ve never had a PDGA tournament?

3) There is nowhere online that hole by hole score averages are easily available.

4) And to make it even harder, what if you play a layout that is a mixture of the A&B basket positions? How could you find out the SSA for the specific layout you played? There would need to be an online database that has hole by hole SSAs for each layout. This doesn�t exist.

4.1 The problem of layouts that have several tees and several basket positions really complicates matters. For example, figuring out how to calculate the SSA of a round you play at Seneca or Calvert is nearly impossible. They both mix up the baskets so much, how could someone ever know which combination of baskets was played on the day that a particular SSA was calculated? And even if you had that data you would still have to know the SSA for every hole in every layout and then very tediously compare your particular round hole by hole. At Calvert there are almost 9 complete layouts! In the case of Seneca the standard layouts (e.g. Red-A) are only played in tournaments, and every other layout has a mixture of basket positions. So no casual round you ever play at Seneca will ever match the SSA that it recorded. You could only compare your score to SSA if you played a tournament round and many people don�t play PDGA tournaments. The only conceivable way to compare a casual round to a tournament SSA would be to get access to the hole SHS data for every layout. Then you would have to piece together your round for the A, B, or C data. That's nearly impossible.

5) Also, how do you know that the SSA listed even matches the current layout? What if they changed the course layout between the time that the SSA was posted and the time you played?

6) SSA is variable even with the effects of foliage and weather (esp. wind and rain). To use the PDGA SSA numbers you need to know if there was any unusual weather on that day in that location. Getting information like this is very difficult. You also need to factor in the season of the year. In warmer climates courses with heavy vegetation play harder in the summer than in the winter. In colder places such as Minnesota and Wisconsin the courses play harder in the winter because of cold, snow, and ice.

Lowe,
Dont you feel a good course designer should have the par in mind when designing the holes and/or course?



Dave,

Most definitely. But first the designer needs to be able to answer the question "What is Par?" with a consistent and universal answer. Currently, disc golf course designers can't do that. Even top designers disagree about fundamental aspects of par.

I believe that at this time the word "par" and the associated words like "birdie, bogey..." have so many meanings that they have lost meaning and are worthless to use. Only with a consistent and universal standard can thos wored regain any meaning.

This makes sense on an intuitive level.




Not to me it doesn't. It takes the heart right out of the word "par." Y'all are essentially implying that I (a lousy ball golfer) should expect to find some course where I will shoot par on rather than 40 over par. When my buddy from across the country who is actually good and shoots real par calls and asks me what I shoot, I respond "par." He thinks we are equally accomplished golfers, that we are on "par" with each other.

If we want to butcher language, create confusion, and make ability comparisons very difficult, let's create pars for every skill level.



James I completely agree with you. Well stated.

"Par" means average for the skill level of the players involved. What could be more consistent than to have standards for specific skill levels? The ball golf phrase that par is for expert play is not used for skill levels other than expert women and expert men. Appropriate skill standards are used for par from the other tees (Sr, Jr, Championship)



Can anyone document where ball golf has different standards for par for different skill levels? In my research at the USGA sites I could only find 2 standards for par-- Men and Women. (Well, OK, there is Junior par as a 3rd standard, but it is so contrived and just a "feel good" number that I bet every kid is glad to graduate from it as soon as possible. I don't count that because it so contrived and of such limited value. When I was kid playing golf if someone had told me about Junior par it would have satisfied me when I was 10, but once I got to high school I would have certainly discarded it for "real" par.)

The USGA par standard for BG (from the USGA Handicap System Manual http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/handicap_system_manual.html)

<table border="1"><tr><td>YARDAGE GUIDELINES
</td></tr><tr><td>Par </td><td>Men </td><td>Women
</td></tr><tr><td>3 </td><td>up to 250 </td><td>up to 210
</td></tr><tr><td>4 </td><td>251 to 470 </td><td>211 to 400
</td></tr><tr><td>5 </td><td>471 to 690 </td><td>401 to 590
</td></tr><tr><td>6 </td><td>691 and over </td><td>591 and over </tr></td></table>
(Note that these numbers are based on "effective length".)

Obviously there are different tees used, but I think that par is still based on the same standard. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the different tees use one standard but they make tees harder by changing the length. For example, on a typical hole they make blue longer than white and gold longer than blue, but par for each is still based on the same standard in the table above. The longer tees are harder because they are longer.

I don't know about the red tees. I assume that they are based on the Women's par standard, but I'm not sure about this.

I think there has been lots of confusion over this point, but if I'm correct then our older brother does not have different standards for par for different playing levels.

To me the biggest problem with having different pars for different playing levels is a huge "portability error". it becomes very difficult to compare rounds at different courses. If I shoot an even par 54 on a Red level course how does that compare to the 60 that I shoot on a Blue level course?

In a related issue, if a Blue level player plays a Red level course with a Red level par then par means nothing to him and becomes useless. Many Red level par 4s are Blue level par 3s.

Par 2s are mostly an issue when you use the Score Average (SA) par method. With the Close Range (CR) Par method you only have par 2s for Gold Level players on holes with an effective lenght of 120 ft. or less and these are rare. With the Ball Golf (BG) Par method there are no par 2s since you are allowed 2 shots to finish the hole. With BG Par the only par 2 would be a hole that you are putting on. (The shortest hole in NC-- hole 6 at Ridgecrest in Black Mountain-- is 51 ft., so maybe that would be a par 2 with BG Par.)

[QUOTE]
What is the disadvantage with using SSA?...

Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:



What if no one is saying that actual Scratch Score Average (SSA) is the only tool that should determine Par Lowe?

Yes, you are right, IF �actual SSA� is the ONLY tool it has some of the challenges you describe. But it is NOT the only tool, it is part of the existing and proven system that provides the standards for PDGA Player Ratings > Scratch Score Average > PDGA Skill Level Tee Pad Designations > Hole Par Forecaster Tools > etc..

Even �throws to the green plus two throws� theories are directly related to SSA because that data provides the average drive distance standards as well as average putts to complete a hole.

What solution do you propose?

Can anyone document where ball golf has different standards for par for different skill levels? In my research at the USGA sites I could only find 2 standards for par-- Men and Women.



Sure. Let's say you and I are 107 golfers and we go out to the local public course and you shoot from the blue tees and I from the red and we both play the course as par 72. Who is going to have a better score in regards to that par?

I know you are looking for something written down by the PGA, but why bother with something so very obvious. I mean if the skill levels were not intended for different tee pads then why even have them? Why keep the par the same for all 3 or 4 tees?

Note: The PDGA definition of a Scratch Disc Golfer is superior to that of the PGA definition of a Scratch Golfer. I think that is were our study of their system needs to come to an end and their study of our system needs to begin...

This makes sense on an intuitive level.




Not to me it doesn't. It takes the heart right out of the word "par." Y'all are essentially implying that I (a lousy ball golfer) should expect to find some course where I will shoot par on rather than 40 over par. When my buddy from across the country who is actually good and shoots real par calls and asks me what I shoot, I respond "par." He thinks we are equally accomplished golfers, that we are on "par" with each other.

If we want to butcher language, create confusion, and make ability comparisons very difficult, let's create pars for every skill level.



James I completely agree with you. Well stated.



By this you are agreeing that no course may ever have a par below 54, is that correct. So handicapping on these courses would work precisely how?

Aren't there plenty of ball golf courses with pars varying from 36 to over 72? (Including putt putt, pitch n putt and regular courses).

In case anyone missed it here are the standards I'm talking about:

Suggested PDGA Par Standards (http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf)

What is the disadvantage with using SSA?...

Problems with using actual SSA to determine Par:



What if no one is saying that actual Scratch Score Average (SSA) is the only tool that should determine Par Lowe?

Yes, you are right, IF �actual SSA� is the ONLY tool it has some of the challenges you describe. But it is NOT the only tool, ...



Neon,

You took my quote out of context. Please go back and read the first paragraph of the post again where I explain how tools such as the DGCD Hole Forecaster and even the published Score Avg chart can overcome these difficulties.

The focus of my original post is on the word actual. Unfortunately the Hole Forecaster is not available to everybody but that's OK too, because only qualified people should set par anyway.

Even �throws to the green plus two throws� theories are directly related to SSA because that data provides the average drive distance standards as well as average putts to complete a hole.

What solution do you propose?



Nick,

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The CR Par and BG Par lengths for Gold players are NOT derived from SSA. They come from a PDGA document: PDGA Course Design Guidelines for Each Player Skill Level (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf) . In this document the effective length of a Gold par 3 hole is given as 360 ft. The length of 360 ft. is also derived from the 2002 drive length data. (That average was 380 ft., but 360 ft. is used to conform to the PDGA document above and as a length that 75% of Gold level players would drive to.)

Instead of using the Score Average (SA) Par method based on SSA I advocate using the Close Range (CR) Par method based on length. (and based on the errorless play of an expert.)

Ball golf has a much more complicated system that has no connection to actual scores. Lowe is correct that BG formally has only two numerical reference formulas, men and women expert players. But there are really four because the slope factor is derived from clipboard evaluations that determine, in theory, what bogey men and women will shoot. We do all this more simply and accurately with SSA and no need for gender discrimination.

Although unpublished, there are three more standards used for the mens, womens and senior Pro tours. The announcers indicated this when they have the three tour challenge. The men play longer tees than the seniors, who play longer than the women. The par length breaks don't match the distances Lowe posted above but still follow the "shots to the green plus two" guideline for their skill levels.

There may be up to five tees on a BG course which mostly, but not always, have the same par. The problem of course, is that there's no way to tell which tee to play that would be the best for your skill level because that hasn't been defined, even if you know your handicap. There's no consistency to BG tee colors or names (like Championship or Competitive). As Nick points out, if we have the same skill level and I get to play a shorter set of tees with the same par, it's obvious that it's not fair in head-to-head play. The only way it would be more fair if we played different tees is to use our handicaps as long as the mens course rating and slope adjustments are available on both.

The complexity can be seen by looking at some scorecards. The first two links show courses with several tees plus the mens and womens slope factors but not on each tee. Bighorn (http://www.golfprohelp.com/Scorecards/bighorn-canyons-golf-03.asp)
Covered Bridge (http://www.golfprohelp.com/Scorecards/covered-bridge-golf-03.asp)

These cards show courses where the shorter tees have different pars on some holes. In addition, the hole difficulty varies between sets of tees based on the handicap ratings which are shown. Oakland Hills (http://www.golfprohelp.com/Scorecards/oakland-hills-country-club-01.asp)
St. Andrews (http://www.golfprohelp.com/Scorecards/st-andrews-old-course-02.asp)

In the upper right corner of the St. Andrews card, you can see a term that's somewhat like our SSA called SSS. That stands for Standard Scratch Score. It is even adjusted for weather to get a Course Scratch Score for the day. Of course, neither their SSS or CSS are based on actual scores, which is the downfall of all ball golf systems. They haven't even spot checked their values since 1970. Their handicap guru admits that the scratch amateur golfers probably play 1 shot better since then due to technology improvements.

The one simple aspect of BG, that would be nice to adopt if it worked for disc golf (without overinflating par), is that shots to the green plus two makes estimating par relatively easy. However, that provides no guidance for which tee would be best for me to play where the lengths and carries are in the range for my skill level so that "shots to the green plus two" works for me, you or any other golfer.

Can anyone document where ball golf has different standards for par for different skill levels? In my research at the USGA sites I could only find 2 standards for par-- Men and Women.



Sure. Let's say you and I are 107 golfers and we go out to the local public course and you shoot from the blue tees and I from the red and we both play the course as par 72. Who is going to have a better score in regards to that par?

I know you are looking for something written down by the PGA, but why bother with something so very obvious. I mean if the skill levels were not intended for different tee pads then why even have them?



Neon,

I hate to say it, but I don't think that you understood the meaning of my post. But it's a little hard to communicate what I meant so I wouldn't blame you.

I agree, of course, that the different BG tees are for different skill levels. Obviously, if two players of equal skill play different tees the person playing the shorter tees should score better.

What I AM saying is that par for all tees are still based on the same standard. In ball golf par for men is based on the following effective lengths:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Par</td><td>Men
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>up to 250
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>251 to 470
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>471 to 690
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>691 and over
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

This is one standard for men. What I'm saying is that one standard is used for par, but to produce different tees for different skill levels they add more distance to other tees.

To use an example, if a BG hole is 380 yards the White tees then it may be 410 yards from the Blue tees and 450 yards from the Gold tees, but the maximum effective length of any tees for a par 4 is still 470 yards. The 3 tees are designed for different skill levels, with the longest tee being for those of the greatest skill, but par is still only based on ONE standard (for Men).

Chuck understood the point I was makins so you can also see his post.

I hope that this clears up what I meant.

Now to make a transition to disc golf I would suggest that DG also only have 2 standards for par-- one for men and one for women based on effective hole length.

DG can have different colored tees for different skill levels but I think that there should only be one standard for par, not a different par standard for 5 or 6 skill levels. If there is only one standard then the word "par" has a definite meaning. You make tees for different skill levels by using appropriate lengths just as big brother BG does. Thus on the same course Blue tees are longer than White which are longer than Red tees, but they still only use one standard to determine par.

Lots of good info there, Chuck.


The one simple aspect of BG, that would be nice to adopt if it worked for disc golf (without overinflating par), is that shots to the green plus two makes estimating par relatively easy. However, that provides no guidance for which tee would be best for me to play where the lengths and carries are in the range for my skill level so that "shots to the green plus two" works for me, you or any other golfer.



There are two ingredients that are needed in disc golf to make the shots to the green plus two putts par method work. The first is to make putting around the basket more difficult, and has been discussed at length. The second crucial element is to expand the concept of the "green" up to 120 ft. and create drives and approaches where it is necessary to throw a quality shot to make it "on the green". The easiest and least interesting way to do this is through extra length. Creative designs that address this issue without catering solely to big arms are the future.

As to the question of which tee to play, we have to continue the education about the gold/blue/white/red standard by posting the recommended distance guidelines for each set of tees on course info boards.

Ball golfers can easily determine which set of tees to play simply by looking at the slope and the overall distance from each tee.

At the most basic level there needs to first be a decision made about what par is and should do. There are 2 options:
1) Par is determined by scoring averages of expert players. Foliage density, and OB are key factors because they affect the scoring averages. The purpose is to have par be as close as possible to the scoring average of a hole. This would use SSA (or it's derivative for different skill levels).

2) Par is determined by the errorless play of expert players. Foliage density and OB don't matter at all because an errorless throw would not hit any of these. Scoring averages don't matter either. It is based on effective length for an expert player.

What you decide about this fundamental issue will determine what par method you decide to use. Those who adhere to 1) will use SA Par. Those who adhere to 2) will use CR Par or BG Par.

Currently, even among top designers, there is a great rift between these two camps and neither side seems to want to change.

For me personally, I was in the SA Par camp for quite a while but then I converted to the CR Par viewpoint. It comes down to "what is par?"

To me the biggest problem with having different pars for different playing levels is a huge "portability error". it becomes very difficult to compare rounds at different courses. If I shoot an even par 54 on a Red level course how does that compare to the 60 that I shoot on a Blue level course?

In a related issue, if a Blue level player plays a Red level course with a Red level par then par means nothing to him and becomes useless. Many Red level par 4s are Blue level par 3s.



This is a point that should be emphasized. Course length does not determine at all what skill level the tees play. An SSA 65 Red course is going to be much longer than an SSA 50 Blue course. If the SSA's aren't posted, their is going to be some confusion in this matter. If the hole par is posted, that is better than nothing, but... if the hole pars are misleading and not keeping the course SSA in mind, this would create unnecessary confusion as well.

As far as all the disadvantages Lowe listed to using SSA... It seems to me the very best tool we have is Chuck's spreadsheet. A few buddy's with ratings can play any course configuration you wish and figure out the SSA. It might not be as accurate, but you can even use the system to find local player ratings for those who don't have them. If your serious about figuring the SSA very accurately, I'd do like the PDGA does and use 8 or so PDGA rated players and a few rounds worth of data. If the course you are currently playing only includes some of the holes you want to calculate for the configuration your working on, just input those holes for hole scoring averages. Then piece the other half of the holes to the first to figure the entire WCP for the config.

As far as SSA changing for elements, the result is fairly negligible when looked at in the big scheme. It would be less accurate to apply a uniform adjustment factor than it would be to do nothing.

With changes in course design, yes, the course SSA's need to be re-evaluated. Doing it yourself using the spreadsheet puts this in your control. Even if your just using the distance/foliage chart to calculate the hole scoring averages, this is a lot more accurate than just guessing what the par should be and insisting on maintaining this regardless of changes. This chart and the course / hole formulas are good estimates for figuring averages with different tees / pin configs. If you want more accuracy, use the spreadsheet and input real data. The problem is not that we are powerless to figure up SSA, just that not many are out there gathering and posting the data.

Having different par for different skill levels seems inescapable. If you remember, I was against this at first. It's complexity does make you wonder if it's actually going to catch on. If the SSA's aren't posted on tee signs including SA's for different skill levels, I don't see it happening very soon. If you wanted to do away with different pars for different skill levels, it would be best just to post the actual hole scoring data for 1000 rated players (i.e. HSA 2.78) on each tee sign and let players make their own adjustments to their rating. Of course, the main arguement here is that some tees don't play very well for some divisions, such as when players of that skill level shoot virtually the exact same scores for the hole.

I think the Par 2 arguement has got way too much attention. Calling a 2.4 HSA hole a par 2 is no worse than calling a 3.9 HSA hole a par 3. Their is not a balanced birdie / bogey ratio? That is the point I've been pressing about ALL holes. The par has got to make sense. Par 2's do not make sense. If you have data that suggests a hole par 2, you need to change the hole or change the skill level of the hole. How many times has/can this been said? That is the problem with using a universal skill to approach all holes. With that said, I've seen a few cool par 2 holes (they were labelled par 3, but when have par signs ever been helpful or accurate?). Hole #5 short to short in Hays is a good example. The hole is only100', but elevation and trees and OB all come into play. I don't know what the HSA is, but it probably gets aced (birdied) 1 out of every 100 pro throws or so. Basically, its a tweener hole. The par should be 2.5. These kind of holes can be fun, but frustrate attempts to give them a defined par.

This bring up HSA conversion again. How many tournaments have pros play from the pro tees every round, advanced play from the next back, ams the next back, and so on for every single round? It doesn't hardly ever happen. Players like the variety of being able to play all the different angles of the course. If we had more par 4 style courses, maybe players wouldn't be so desperate for a some of that "spice of life". If we only calculate HSA and par for a given skill level, the rest of the players actually playing from a different skill level's pad (which is what, 80-90% of the time?), will be left out from the benefits of all this ground work.

In case anyone missed it here are the standards I'm talking about:

Suggested PDGA Par Standards (http://www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf)



This is basically a simplified hole forecaster is it not? With only two foliage densities rather than 5 or more. It seems pretty straightforward and easy to use to me.

I'm not sure what form of "expertise" you feel following this document entails? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

...The second crucial element is to expand the concept of the "green" up to 120 ft. and create drives and approaches where it is necessary to throw a quality shot to make it "on the green"...



Amen!! I wholeheartedly agree with this point! :D

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The CR Par and BG Par lengths for Gold players are NOT derived from SSA. They come from a PDGA document: PDGA Course Design Guidelines for Each Player Skill Level .



From what data do you think that document was created?

I must have missed the BG and CR discussions unless you are speaking of "throws plus however many close range throws" theories. Do you have somewhere on the discussion board where you have fully presented your CR theories? I'd like to read them.

BGs theories of par are already inferior to our suggested standards in my opinion. I'm looking for a better one than we have or one that is at least as good.

Lowe, take a look at the Covered Bridge scorecard and see how foolish it is to use the mens standard for par. It's not even close to being useful beyond the two longest tee sets. The scratch rating for each layout ranges from 73 down to 64. There's no way the true par is actually what is shown. That 107 yd hole looks suspiciously like a par 2 :Dto make the true pars add up to 32 (half of 64) And again, there's no way to tell which tee to play based on skill level/handicap level.

The second crucial element is to expand the concept of the "green" up to 120 ft. and create drives and approaches where it is necessary to throw a quality shot to make it "on the green".



Just expanding the concept of a green doesn't change the scoring math and the SSA function constant. Only specific changes to the discs or basket will impact that constant enough to move it toward the BG framework. Or you could require a 5 foot high fence with selected gaps be constructed around every basket 12 feet away, kind of like the bamboo screen at USDGC #7.

Lowe, how do you handle courses, as far as par, that have SSAs well below 54. Do you really believe that they are the same par as courses that have SSAs at or above 54?

Could you present your complete version of CR par here for us to review?

I must have missed the BG and CR discussions unless you are speaking of "throws plus however many close range throws" theories. Do you have somewhere on the discussion board where you have fully presented your CR theories? I'd like to read them.



Nick,

I know you've got tons going on with the Course Eval Group, your local area, and the hundreds of threads that you follow on this board. But if you look a little further back upthread you can find a full explanation of CR Par as well as my analysis of SA Par and BG Par.

Also, a while ago I emailed you a Word document with the same explanation of CR Par. It contains what you asked me to post on the MADISC Discussion board. If you no longer have it I can email it to you again. Please drop me an email (that's better than a PM).

The second crucial element is to expand the concept of the "green" up to 120 ft. and create drives and approaches where it is necessary to throw a quality shot to make it "on the green".



Just expanding the concept of a green doesn't change the scoring math and the SSA function constant...



Chuck,

This forum is such a limited way to communicate! I may have things clear in my mind, but often it just doesn't seem to get through to others in the same way.

One of the central concepts of CR Par is expanding the definiton of a "short range" shot to 120 ft. This can be conceptualized as the edge of the green. One communication breakdown is the insistence on using score averages as the only way to determine par, but with a paradigm shift another method is to use length to determine par.

I agree that adding length doesn't change the ATG factor of 1.67 per hole or the mechanics of how score averages are determined. But adding length to a hole does increase the scoring average.

Chuck, here's a simple exercise. With the Hole Forecaster set to Gold tees enter a length of 380 ft. with average foliage. The est. Score Avg = 3.00
Now keep all factors the same but change the length to 500 ft. and the est. Score Avg changes to 3.42. Adding length to the hole increases the SSA. Increasing the score average offsets the 0.33 throws lost to the 1.67 ATG factor which results in the socre being close to par.

Lets say you had a 380 ft. flat hole w/ Avg foliage. If you had the ability to just move the basket back 120 ft. you would increase the score avg. So if an average drive is 380 ft. (or the 360 I've been using) then on a 500 ft. hole average drives would end up 120 ft. short, which can be called "at the front edge of the green", leaving 2 shots to complete the hole. This is for the maximum length of a par 3 hole.

Could you present your complete version of CR par here for us to review?



Nick,

To avoid duplication please see my post on 1/25/06, #500407, titled "Close Range (CR) Par"

Lowe, how do you handle courses, as far as par, that have SSAs well below 54. Do you really believe that they are the same par as courses that have SSAs at or above 54?



This is a place to differentiate between Par and Course difficulty. Unless a course has any holes with an effective length of 120 ft. or less all holes will be at least Gold CR par 3. If there are no par 4s then it will have a Gold CR par of 54.

SSA - Gold CR Par = one measure of course difficulty. If the number is negative then the course is easier; if it's positive then the course is harder. The more negative the easier it is. For example, with and SSA of 50 and a Gold CR Par of 54 the difference is -4. This is an easier course than one with a Gold CR par of 54 and and SSA of 55 = +1.

Using the SA par method a course with an SSA of 50 may have Gold SA par of 50. Par matches scoring averages, but you lose the measure of difficulty.

Both methods show you, through different routes, that you have some holes that should be changed for a Gold level course. That's because both methods use the indispensible factors of par and SSA.

Is this topic starting to finally boil down to the basics? Seems like quite a bit of waisted characters. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Here's the short version of my view. SSA par seemlessly incorporated every factor of the game into the correct par for the hole. There is nothing that is overlooked because the par comes from actual scores.

CR par or BG par has several inadequacies. The main thing that is the problem is... These theories don't account for how holes do not often average where the player finds himself approximately 2 shots away from the hole. If the hole is 390' to the green and the player averages 360-380', then you've made a par 4 on a 3.1 averaging hole. Same scenario: if you average 25' out from after your drive, your calling a hole a par 3 that averages 2.2.

The other thing that could throw BG or CR par off is heavily depending on numberical distance ranges for certain divisions for certain foliage ratings. Lots of chances to misjudge here. The most you can be off in SA par is .49.

In BG or CR par, almost all par 5 holes would be considered par 4. Errorless play would get you easily on the green in 2 shots. In fact, errorless play should put you with a fairly easy putt for an eagle 3, right? Seems to me that "errorless" is like most things now days.... It is commonly misconceived in a way different for everyone, but everyone believes that they misconceive it in the same way. Let's face it, errorless means hole in one, as far as golf is concerned. If you call it something else, a different definition has to be applied. There is no such definition. Distance ranges are kept constant, but an errorless shot can go through any thickness of foliage to reach it's certain "distance range".

BG and CR par compensate for this unrealistic notion by giving 2 shots to go in from anywhere on the green. It doesn't matter what part of the green players are averaging their landing. If shots average 20' out, it is quite different as far as score goes than shots that average 120' out.

Just as par 5's are downgraded to 4's despite scoring average, so are 2's and 3's upgraded to the next level for reasons mentioned above. If the holes are being parked, then the green area isn't even important.

Seems to me that BG and CR par, though not matching the scoring average as well, are pushing the par for holes to either 3 or 4. This seems to be taking the game backward toward the par 54 golf that we've lived with for so long, instead of forward, where the truth telling data points toward.

Obviously the differences between the methods are much more noticable on poor designs. If holes were designed where average shots landed about 120' out for pros, their wouldn't be such discrepancy between the methods. Plus we'd have some good holes. They might be even better, offering more scoring variety, if the 120' could be lessened. This could be done by introducing more foliage around the green (and on the green), elevation change on the green, and perhaps the thread of OB here and there. This would be preferable (though much more work), than making targets harder.

Seems there is a lot of arguement here against BG and CR par as used in disc golf. So far, the only thing I've heard against SSA par is that it is difficult to establish. Though there is truth to this, as I've mentioned, it isn't so hard as most believe. Let's start getting these SSA's set with whatever means we have to use, be it a tournament or a spreadsheet. Even if we have a tourney, hole scoring averages are still going to take extra work to aquire, so we might as well start looking in the direction of the spreadsheet in achieving a universal way to establish par. Perhaps some tweaking could be done to make it even more user-friendly and also multi-faceted for scoring averages of non-1000 rated divisions.

In BG or CR par, almost all par 5 holes would be considered par 4. Errorless play would get you easily on the green in 2 shots. In fact, errorless play should put you with a fairly easy putt for an eagle 3, right? Seems to me that "errorless" is like most things now days.... It is commonly misconceived in a way different for everyone, but everyone believes that they misconceive it in the same way. Let's face it, errorless means hole in one, as far as golf is concerned. If you call it something else, a different definition has to be applied. There is no such definition. Distance ranges are kept constant, but an errorless shot can go through any thickness of foliage to reach it's certain "distance range"


errorless play is not the same as a fluke shot. golf par 5's have changed over the years as equipment has changed. at one point it took three shots for almost everyone to reach a par 5. as more and more pros became able to reach par 5's in two the standard became that 2 par 5's per course would be reachable (aka par 4.5's) and 2 would be true 3 shot holes. recently almost every par 5 has become reachable for the bombers, as a result many holes that used to be called par 5's (around 500 yards) are now called par 4's and many par 5's are being stretched out to 600 yards or more.

Could you present your complete version of CR par here for us to review?



Nick,

To avoid duplication please see my post on 1/25/06, #500407, titled "Close Range (CR) Par"



Realistate is cheap on the internet and what was said a month ago is often lost on readers today:

Close Range (CR) Par

The main idea is that par is calculated by the number of errorless throws in regulation to reach �close range� plus two throws from there to hole out. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in golf. �Close range� is much longer than 10 meters, though.

This method is built on several related assumptions: 1) The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 throws for disc golf should be an essential consideration for establishing par. 2) Par should be determined by the PDGA definition which is the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole. This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the �green�. With this method of determining par players will need expand their concept of the �green�. 3) A �close range� shot is longer than 10 meters. The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the expert drive length. For Gold level players this length works out to 120 ft., so it would be helpful to visualize the �green� as extending to 120 ft. from the basket.

The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor is one of the most important elements in determining par. The ATG refers to the number of putts needed to finish the hole. It has been determined to be a constant of 30 throws for 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Since the ATG factor is only 1.67, if a par 3 is calculated by one throw plus 2 shots ATG, then scores would average only 2.67 for par 3 holes. But if you add 0.33 throws to the 1.67 ATG then you have the 2 throws allowed in the definition of par. Therefore 0.33 is used as the factor to determine the maximum length of a close range shot. With the maximum length close range shot as 0.33 of the base drive length you have a length from which an expert player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. Thus a par 3 is calculated as 1 drive + (0.33 x Drive length) + 1.67 putts. Another way to conceptualize CR Par is to think of a maximum length par 3 as 1.33 throws plus 1.67 throws to hole out. For Gold level holes the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 multiplied by this length equals 120 ft. Keep in mind that the length to be used is �effective length� not �actual length�. �Effective length� takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups from doglegs and water carries. Therefore, for Gold level holes the maximum effective length for a par 3 is a 360 ft. drive plus a 120 ft. close range shot which equals 480 ft. (This can be simplified to the equation 360 x 1.33 = 480).

Another important concept of the CR Par method is that it is based on the �errorless� play of an expert player. Score averages, foliage density, and potential OB penalties are not considered in determining par because all that matters is how many errorless throws that it would take an expert player to reach close range in regulation. No matter how frequently it might happen, if a player hits a tree or goes OB then it was not an errorless throw. Scoring spreads and scoring averages may provide helpful information in determining the par of �tweener� holes, but these are not primary considerations with the CR Par method.
Since close range length is added to the drive length eagles will be very rare for holes at the maximum length. Keep in mind, though, that this only applies to holes at the maximum length. Most holes in existence would most likely be shorter than this, thus the chance of a birdie and eagle are far greater on existing holes.

Using CR Par there are existing par 2 holes, but since a player is allowed two close range shots to finish the hole a par 2 must have an effective length of �close range� or shorter. For Gold levels this length is 120 ft, so by definition, holes longer than 120 ft. are par 3.

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

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

Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = drive standard for each level x 1.33
.
<table border="1"><tr><td> Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>120</td><td>480 (360 + 120)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121 </tr></td></table>

Internet Reality is Cheap:

Close Range (CR) Par

The main idea is that par is calculated by the number of errorless throws in regulation to reach �close range� plus two throws from there to hole out. This is analogous to reaching the front edge of the green in golf. �Close range� is much longer than 10 meters, though.

This method is built on several related assumptions: 1) The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 throws for disc golf should be an essential consideration for establishing par. 2) Par should be determined by the PDGA definition which is the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole. This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the �green�. With this method of determining par players will need expand their concept of the �green�. 3) A �close range� shot is longer than 10 meters. The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the expert drive length. For Gold level players this length works out to 120 ft., so it would be helpful to visualize the �green� as extending to 120 ft. from the basket.

The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor is one of the most important elements in determining par. The ATG refers to the number of putts needed to finish the hole. It has been determined to be a constant of 30 throws for 18 holes, or 1.67 per hole. Since the ATG factor is only 1.67, if a par 3 is calculated by one throw plus 2 shots ATG, then scores would average only 2.67 for par 3 holes. But if you add 0.33 throws to the 1.67 ATG then you have the 2 throws allowed in the definition of par. Therefore 0.33 is used as the factor to determine the maximum length of a close range shot. With the maximum length close range shot as 0.33 of the base drive length you have a length from which an expert player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. Thus a par 3 is calculated as 1 drive + (0.33 x Drive length) + 1.67 putts. Another way to conceptualize CR Par is to think of a maximum length par 3 as 1.33 throws plus 1.67 throws to hole out. For Gold level holes the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 multiplied by this length equals 120 ft. Keep in mind that the length to be used is �effective length� not �actual length�. �Effective length� takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups from doglegs and water carries. Therefore, for Gold level holes the maximum effective length for a par 3 is a 360 ft. drive plus a 120 ft. close range shot which equals 480 ft. (This can be simplified to the equation 360 x 1.33 = 480).

Another important concept of the CR Par method is that it is based on the �errorless� play of an expert player. Score averages, foliage density, and potential OB penalties are not considered in determining par because all that matters is how many errorless throws that it would take an expert player to reach close range in regulation. No matter how frequently it might happen, if a player hits a tree or goes OB then it was not an errorless throw. Scoring spreads and scoring averages may provide helpful information in determining the par of �tweener� holes, but these are not primary considerations with the CR Par method.
Since close range length is added to the drive length eagles will be very rare for holes at the maximum length. Keep in mind, though, that this only applies to holes at the maximum length. Most holes in existence would most likely be shorter than this, thus the chance of a birdie and eagle are far greater on existing holes.

Using CR Par there are existing par 2 holes, but since a player is allowed two close range shots to finish the hole a par 2 must have an effective length of �close range� or shorter. For Gold levels this length is 120 ft, so by definition, holes longer than 120 ft. are par 3.

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

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

Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = drive standard for each level x 1.33
<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>Par 2</td><td>Par 3</td><td>Par 4</td><td>Par 5</td><td>Par 6
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold</td><td>120</td><td>480 (360 + 120)</td><td>800 (480 + 320)</td><td>1120 (800 + 320)</td><td>>1121
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Hi Lowe,

Here are a few questions based on Close Range Par as you presented it:


This method is built on several related assumptions: 1) The �Around the Green� (ATG) factor of 1.67 throws for disc golf should be an essential consideration for establishing par.



Is this correct? This would imply that CR Par is based on PDGA Player Ratings calculations. Scratch Score Averages to be exact. Did you change this recently? If so is the new understanding �stand-alone� or still dependent on PDGA PRs and SSAs?


2) Par should be determined by the PDGA definition which is the number of shots to reach �close range� plus two to complete the hole. This close range shot corresponds to reaching the front edge of the �green�. With this method of determining par players will need expand their concept of the �green�. 3) A �close range� shot is longer than 10 meters. The maximum length of a close range shot is 0.33 multiplied by the expert drive length. For Gold level players this length works out to 120 ft., so it would be helpful to visualize the �green� as extending to 120 ft. from the basket.



Again this seems to rely heavily on PDGA Ratings Based calculations. This seems pretty straightforward though, that is until I read the next paragraph:


With the maximum length close range shot as 0.33 of the base drive length you have a length from which an expert player will ordinarily hole out in two shots. Thus a par 3 is calculated as 1 drive + (0.33 x Drive length) + 1.67 putts. Another way to conceptualize CR Par is to think of a maximum length par 3 as 1.33 throws plus 1.67 throws to hole out. For Gold level holes the base drive length is 360 ft., so 0.33 multiplied by this length equals 120 ft. Keep in mind that the length to be used is �effective length� not �actual length�. �Effective length� takes into account the effect of elevation changes and forced lay ups from doglegs and water carries. Therefore, for Gold level holes the maximum effective length for a par 3 is a 360 ft. drive plus a 120 ft. close range shot which equals 480 ft. (This can be simplified to the equation 360 x 1.33 = 480).



�Close Range shot� is not as simple a concept as you presented in the first paragraph apparently. First, you base this on �Gold level holes� which are directly related to PDGA Player Ratings and from data gained through Scratch Score Averages so why not just use those if they are already available? Second, you present another new concept of �Effective Length� which requires the subjectively judgmental evaluation of factors such as �elevation changes�, �forced layups� and �water carries�. There are far more considerations than this in the worksheet you sent me as well all requiring observation and judgment of each to factors between 10 to 20 if I remember correctly. Why do all of this when all you get in the end is an estimate of what an expert disc golfer (you agree is a 1000 PDGA Rated Disc Golfer) will shoot based on all of these other �estimates�; when you can just go straight to the source and use the actual or projected Scratch Score Averages and deal with as single statistically verifiable calculation?

Why jump through all the hoops when the numbers you need are already available?

Is it because you believe PDGA Player Ratings are incorrect indicators of scratch golf? I noticed that in a immediately following post:

I consider scratch as 1000 PR.



So that must not be it. Within your original post you didn�t directly present the challenges you feel exist for using SSA is the primary tool for setting course pars. You probably have elsewhere. You did however discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using your CR par. So let�s take a look at that.


Advantages of CR Par:
� It adheres to the PDGA definition of par with two �close range� throws (even though �close range� is defined differently than current usage) and it follows the precedent of golf. <font color="green"> So it does not adhere to the PDGA definition of par then. Where did we agree that following the precedent of golf was an advantage? Seems to me like this would be a disadvantage. Can you explain how it is an advantage?</font>
� It explicitly takes into account the 1.67 ATG factor and adds a factor of 0.33 to account for 2 close range shots.<font color="green"> How is this an advantage, when SSA does all that without the need for thousands of individuals to eye up the multiple factors that go into calculating �Effective Distance�?</font>
� It is based on a standard of errorless play by an expert player. <font color="green"> Again, what do you base this on? Did we agree on a �Standard of Errorless Play� or an �Expert Player�? Errorless play for me is what a PDGA defined Scratch Disc Golfer would be expected to average on a hole and course. That would be the World Class Par (or standardized rounding of the SSA). You agree on the Expert part, but you seem to want to add quite a bit of work to the Errorless Play part and even make it systematically even easier to shoot than SSA does. What is gained by the additional calculations and judgment calls? </font>
� Since the standard is built on a fixed number, effective length, there is more consistency than using actual scoring averages that change. Also the standards are more accessible to every player than Scoring Averages are. This method can be also used on courses that do not even have an SSA established. <font color="green"> True, but then again so can the Suggested PDGA Par Guidelines (�http:www.pdga.com/documents/PublicPar.pdf�) and they involve certainly far less chance of misjudgment than CR Par and are founded on the data of PDGA Player Ratings (already available and in use). Because SSA can provide immediate accuracy as far as Expert Play on any course, anywhere, does not mean that it can�t be used as the primary tool in setting par. If you look at any measure in any sport or industry there is always some method of �rounding� or �preparation for presentation�, especially for things of high standards of accuracy. We are neither stuck with the decimals of each hole SSA or course SSA, neither are we stuck adhering 100% to the most recent SSA. This is where WCP comes in; with procedures to adjust SSAs for rounding and presentation. This is not a weakness but a strength. A strength �Guestimate Par Systems� such as CR and BG completely lack. </font>
� Actual expert scores will be closer to par than with the Ball Golf Par method.

<font color="green"> Is this not equally if not more true of WCP?</font>


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

<font color="green"> These all seem more like challenges of actual Disc Golf Design than any par system. If a hole has an SSA or better a WCP of 5 yet on occasion expert disc golfer get a 3 you have your eagle. If 70% of expert disc golfers get a 2 on a hole and you get a 3 then in more ways than just par considerations you have effectively and actually bogied that hole.</font>


Max effective length for par at Avg foliage (factor 5). Max for par 3 = drive standard for each level x 1.33
. Par 2 Par 3 Par 4 Par 5 Par 6
Gold 120 480 (360 + 120) 800 (480 + 320) 1120 (800 + 320) >1121


This seems very misleadingly simple. The worksheets you sent me were extremely complex and required judging multiple elements according to 10 or more levels of standards. My primary question to you Lowe, in all of this, is why do all of this when SSA and SSA forcasters are simple enough that anyone could use them? What is the upside of using CR or BG Par when the accuracy (even you admit) of a scratch disc golfer in disc golf is far superior (1000 PDGA PR Disc Golfer)?

That is what I am hoping you can illustrate for me.

Best Regards,
Nick

Note: I�m really not trying to be confrontational. I just what to get what you are saying, particularly if it�s advantages are as large as you seem to feel convinced they are. I�m completely tired of discussions turning into shouting matches or worse, but am very much interested in your answers to my questions.

I know that some folks, as you point out, have mental blocks one way or another over this issue, but those who do not need to press on and see if we can figure this thing out so that we can all move on. I recently, and most importantly �out on the course�, realized that par 2s are horrible, as far as I�m concerned, to have out on the course or on a tee sign. If there is no chance of a birdie, or eagle in some rare instances, then what is the point? I mean when I go through a course in my mind the night before an event, I don�t sit there thinking, �Well, how do I go about paring this hole.� I want birdies or better (even ace runs). That is the thrill of �golf� let alone �disc� golf, right?

For me this is a matter of design more than one of a par standard. If a hole is unbirdiable by a certain skill level, say GOLD for this example, then in my opinion we should not rely on our par standard (as we have traditionally done) to bail the poorly designed hole out, but call it what it is and make the Course Pro or Designer deal with �FIXING� the hole. Whether that is a below GOLD standard par 3 hole, a par 2 hole, or a WHITE par 3 hole, the real, and understandable par of that hole needs to be communicated; not just glossed over and lost in mumbo jumbo. To fail to draw a distinction is to really and truly fail to provide a meaningful and useful standard of par in my opinion (and I hope yours). I mean think about it; it is this desire to provide contrived birdie opportunities for poorly designed holes that keeps us from having a par standard worth having. We all seem to be pussyfooting around this central realization.

Here's the short version of my view. SSA par seemlessly incorporated every factor of the game into the correct par for the hole. There is nothing that is overlooked because the par comes from actual scores.

CR par or BG par has several inadequacies. The main thing that is the problem is... These theories don't account for how holes do not often average where the player finds himself approximately 2 shots away from the hole.


I think Lowe and James have got it right. And, as Lowe stated, it does depend on what your goal for par is.

My goal for par is to provide some indication of the difficulty of the hole with respect to the other holes on the course. Par should be what score I should expect to achieve on the hole with errorless play. Not with amazing acrobatic play, or play that forgives a wild throw into the trees. Errorless play means to me: no ace-like winners and no bogey-like errors during play. What would par be on that hole if I played it in a normal, errorless manner?

The reason I don't care if par exactly matches SSA is because I don't expect it to. I think it would be lucky if on that day I happened to play in perfectly average conditions that would generate a perfectly average score. I think conditions change, day by day, and for example on really windy days out on the disc golf course, I know I throw a few shots worse. That doesn't mean par was different on the course that day. That just means I threw a shots worse, period. I'd hate for that measurement of my skill on that day to affect par.

The fact that the skill level of the group you play in also affects SSA, because amateurs tend to be underrated and pros tend to be overrated, just makes the SSA argument worse to me.

Chuck's insistence that these changes are not really that big are difficult to understand when I have my own experience to gauge what the differences in weather, etc., do to my play. I can't imagine I'm the only one affected by changes like that. I think he's always thinking in the best possible terms for courses that have a lot of stats already built up, where big changes are already averaged out. I'm playing on several courses that don't have that many stats, if any, so the first sets of stats taken may have a big impact on par assignments.

Sure, I expect par to have some semblance to the difficulty of the hole. If the estimate-SSA spreadsheet method is used to assign par, I'm okay with that -- as long as this is a one-time assignment, and it doesn't open the door to changing par again to match SSA when those stats are taken.

I'm also okay with BG par, CR par, or almost any other one-time methods of assigning par that take into account the difficulty of the hole. I do not like assigning par-3 to every hole, least of all during tournaments. Stupidest part of tournaments to me is their insistence that all holes are par 3. It's harder to remember that hole 12 at the tournament was a 425-foot hole that bent right. Much easier to say and remember that hole 12 was a par 5.

And if stats later come along and say it plays like a par 4, then maybe I would regard it as an easy par 5. Hey, maybe this is a par 5 that I have a chance to eagle!

But if I play the course regularly and see what I remember to be a par 5 changed to a par 4 because "that's what it is" according to someone who occasionally collects a stat on the course during tournaments, then I would wonder what the pars on the other holes now are, and if that happened to any other courses I played, and I'll really be annoyed that I won't be able to call my score an eagle anymore. That color looked so cool on my scorecard, too.

Oh, well. Just an opinion from a casual player, who likes the game.

Here's an example of a course and event format that's been stable with data for 7 years. Even with different weather, pools of players and tweaks in the ratings calcs, the SSAs are amazingly close from year to year. The foliage density on the course is about average. The variance on specific holes would likely be less than 0.1 so I wouldn't expect J. Gary to have ever changed the pars on these holes.
www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=119 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_course.php?RatingCourseID=119)

From a practical standpoint, I rarely use data to change the pars on the holes. The tools we use to set them in the first place work well. The holes that might change are ones where a par 5 plays easier than expected, say under 4.3 and needs to be toughened or the par dropped. Most designers have little experience doing par 5 holes because of limited space. So the least is known about getting the dynamics correct from the start.

The data from rounds is more interesting in terms of how good the scoring spreads might be or whether the average is below 2.5 and a hole might need to be improved.

From a practical standpoint, I rarely use data to change the pars on the holes. The tools we use to set them in the first place work well.


I don't think you would necessarily change pars to fit SSA (although your next comment makes me wonder), but the arguments you make (SSAs don't change all that much) make it seem you can do this, and there are some who have written that perhaps we should do this, because they feel it's a goal to make par equal to SSA.

The holes that might change are ones where a par 5 plays easier than expected, say under 4.3 and needs to be toughened or the par dropped.


Why does the hole "need" this? If the hole is originally called a par 5, then it's a par 5, and if it plays easier than expected, then some of us have a better chance at an eagle, and that's fun, too.

Why necessarily does the par assignment have to change, or the hole need to be toughened up, because an SSA for that hole comes in lower than the par assignment?

Besides, if the spread of scores goes from 3 to 7 (with obviously a lot more 3s and 4s than 6s and 7s, in this case), I would say it could still be called a legitimate par 5, even if its average is 4.3. Why is the average score of a hole the only determining factor? Is the score spread, and its mean value (in this example, par 5), never taken into account?

"Need" perhaps isn't the best word choice. However, there are so few legit par 5s in the sport that designing holes with a scoring average within 0.5 shots of 5 under normal conditions is a worthwhile goal. I would consider a hole around 4.3 as much a bogus par 5 as a hole with a 2.3 average is a par 3. Both holes should be improved.

Here's an interesting score distribution for a hole we call a Blue Par 5. There are more 4s shot on the hole but it averages 4.64 with a great spread. How about that double eagle 2?
<table border="1"><tr><td> 2</td><td>1%
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>7%
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>43%
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>29%
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>15%
</td></tr><tr><td>7+</td><td>5%
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue Avg</td><td>4.64
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

That looks like a crazy hole. It is interesting how some holes have a mode score that is different than the mean score. BG or CR par would have labelled that hole a par 4. I'm cool with it being 5.


PaulM. I didn't follow your last posts very well. Basically, what I hear you saying is that it doesn't matter what the par is. The most important thing is that it doesn't change.

If that is the case, we'll have all par 3's forever.

You point that the course designer's intentions should be the bottom line for determining par. This might be reasonable if course designers all had a base "common knowledge" of course design. Truth is, you can't rely on this. Their are always going to be course designs that don't have a selected par or skill level in mind. Their are always going to be people putting in courses of 250' per hole and labelling them par 5's. Accepting this standard as superior is rediculous.

Most courses do not have assigned hole pars (other than all 3's). The best time to assign hole pars with a universal standard is now. If that means re-doing a very small number of courses that are many strokes different than appropriate scoring averages, so be it.

I think getting course SSA's posted at courses to be a primary goal, with establishing and posting course hole pars as secondary. When people see how much lack of par 4 holes their course has, they are going to see it lacking. While this may push toward better courses, it may be best not to post this info to begin with.

Same thing goes for courses with established hole pars. If the players are happy with them, they are fine. I do think their should be an indication as to when hole pars are based off hole score average (and perhaps include that HSA). This gives them validity and also makes the system noticable so that people will become interested. So far though, I don't see much statistical info available without having to do some internet digging for it.

Check out the scoring distribution on Winthrop hole #17. It shows how to convert a Gold par 2 into a Gold par 3.
www.usdgc.com/round2stats.pdf (http://www.usdgc.com/round2stats.pdf)

The OB pushes the average up over 3.00, that true.

I don't know that I like the hole because their is no safe shot for par.

This is taking the mode vs. mean statement I made to an extreme. The hole is a par 3, but their aren't hardly any 3's.

I have a full Hole By Hole/Course SSA/WCP Calculator. If you send me full results on an excell spreadsheet player first name, last name, pdga number and hole by hole scores (of course all on the same layout, I will do the calculations and send you a copy of them.

The result will look something like this:
http://home.comcast.net/~nkcom/TylerSPHBHWCP.htm

Enjoy!

I have a WCP Calculator that will provide Course and Hole by Hole SSA and WCPs as well as other calculations. If you send me your full results first name, last name, pdga number, and hole by hole scores for the same layout of an event I will plug them in for you and send back a copy.

It will look something like this: http://home.comcast.net/~nkcom/TylerSPHBHWCP.htm

Enjoy!

I have a WCP Calculator that will provide Course and Hole by Hole SSA and WCPs as well as other calculations. If you send me your full results first name, last name, pdga number, and hole by hole scores for the same layout of an event I will plug them in for you and send back a copy.

It will look something like this: http://home.comcast.net/~nkcom/TylerSPHBHWCP.htm

Enjoy!




That is sweet! Let's get this going! :cool:

Bring it on!

...This seems very misleadingly simple. The worksheets you sent me were extremely complex and required judging multiple elements according to 10 or more levels of standards. My primary question to you Lowe, in all of this, is why do all of this when SSA and SSA forcasters are simple enough that anyone could use them? What is the upside of using CR or BG Par when the accuracy (even you admit) of a scratch disc golfer in disc golf is far superior (1000 PDGA PR Disc Golfer)?

That is what I am hoping you can illustrate for me.

Best Regards,
Nick



Nick,

Once again there is the pitfall of intenet communication. I just didn't have the time to explain every aspect of the spreadsheet that I sent you, so I just don't think that you understood it. That spreadsheet was derived directly from the DGCD Hole Forecaster as well as the PDGA documents that support it.

"Effective length" is not a new concept. It is a fundamental concept borrowed from BG and a fundamental of course design. The first factors of Elevtion differential and forced layup have been defined by Chuck and the PDGA. Every par method needs these numbers to establish the effective length. These are similar to the rows in the Eval spreadsheet to determine effective length, but the Forced Layup is an added complexity for accuracy. (It doesn't even come in to use very often.)

The next row of Foliage density is PDGA standard. The row after that of Trouble factor is the same as used in the DGCD Hole Forecaster.

The sole purpose of these rows is to combine with the effective length to get an estimated Gold Scoring Average (est. SSA). So getting an SSA value is what makes it more complicated. I use SSA factors in a variety of ways to measure hole difficulty, and to help establish the course level, and decide the par of "tweener" holes. It is indispensible.

I have no where said, nor will I ever say, that we should not use SSA. It is an invaluable tool. The tool I sent you has all 3 par types on it: SA Par, CR Par, and BG Par.

Actually the DGCD Hole Forecaster is more complicated than what I sent you. That is just a reality needed to have an accurate model.

Thanks Lowe, I appreciate the time and effort you have put into explaining things. I can't say I have a full grasp of it yet but I'll keep working on it. It is worthwhile work I think you agree.

Thanks Lowe, I appreciate the time and effort you have put into explaining things. I can't say I have a full grasp of it yet but I'll keep working on it. It is worthwhile work I think you agree.

PaulM. I didn't follow your last posts very well. Basically, what I hear you saying is that it doesn't matter what the par is. The most important thing is that it doesn't change.

If that is the case, we'll have all par 3's forever.


You must have missed where I said this:


"I'm also okay with BG par, CR par, or almost any other one-time methods of assigning par that take into account the difficulty of the hole. I do not like assigning par-3 to every hole, least of all during tournaments. Stupidest part of tournaments to me is their insistence that all holes are par 3. It's harder to remember that hole 12 at the tournament was a 425-foot hole that bent right. Much easier to say and remember that hole 12 was a par 5.

And if stats later come along and say it plays like a par 4, then maybe I would regard it as an easy par 5. Hey, maybe this is a par 5 that I have a chance to eagle!


So obviously I don't like par-3s on every hole, also. And I don't like pars that change over time. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Some holes Pars changing over time is inevitable. Even "big brother" has conceded to this even though they have the loot to do whatever they want to change a hole to make it fit the original par.

"Need" perhaps isn't the best word choice. However, there are so few legit par 5s in the sport that designing holes with a scoring average within 0.5 shots of 5 under normal conditions is a worthwhile goal. I would consider a hole around 4.3 as much a bogus par 5 as a hole with a 2.3 average is a par 3. Both holes should be improved.

Here's an interesting score distribution for a hole we call a Blue Par 5. There are more 4s shot on the hole but it averages 4.64 with a great spread. How about that double eagle 2?
<table border="1"><tr><td> 2</td><td>1%
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>7%
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>43%
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>29%
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>15%
</td></tr><tr><td>7+</td><td>5%
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue Avg</td><td>4.64
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>


That double eagle does look like an amazing feat!

The hole is 485 feet downhill which is short for a par 5 hole. However, the tee shot is tight with a low ceiling and it's hard to get more than 240. Many shots are off line enough making it difficult to reach the pin on the second throw. The pin is perched on a mound about 50 feet from a pond shoreline which is more of a psych factor on putting than an OB hazard. The OB risk is coming in too hot on your upshot. The picture on this page in the lower right is looking across the pond from the back side. The middle par 4 pin placement can barely be seen to the left of the tree just where the grass starts on the left. The Par 5 pin is just left of the greenery in the non-grassy area just above the shoreline www.campdiscoveru.com/gr1-6.htm (http://www.campdiscoveru.com/gr1-6.htm) Zac Cobus just ripped a "seeing eye" drive that came up just short of the water and canned the putt for a 2.

Here's the short version of my view. SSA par seemlessly incorporated every factor of the game into the correct par for the hole. There is nothing that is overlooked because the par comes from actual scores.




All I can say is that, in my experience, I've changed from using SA Par to using CR Par. I once believed the same ideas that you stated in your post, and I used SA Par for my personal evaluation of 20-30 courses. (For me personally, my quest is to find more objective ways to measure and evaluate course difficulty. Finding a useful standard for par is a key component of this.)

I belong to the DG Course Designers Group (DGCD) and we were having some discussions about the nature of par. Then when I was reading some designers opinions I had an epiphany about the nature of par. That changed my mind about what par fundamentally is, and I changed from using SA Par.

Personally, I believe that the current PDGA definition of par is good. Therefore, I use the PDGA definition (which is derived from ball golf) that fundamentally par is determined by errorless play. Errorless does not have to mean perfect, which would be in the basket. Errorless only needs to mean hitting a certain landing zone. (Perhaps the word "errorless" could be changed to something like "in regulation" but that is vague too.)

If par is based on errorless play then it does not come from score averages, and OB and foliage density do not matter at all. That's where I'm at (today at least).

It started happening in this new Rulebook where the competition section 804 will be handled more and more by the Competition rather than Rules Committee. One of these upcoming elements that I didn't have a chance to get in this book is changing the Glossary definiton of Par to: "As determined by the director, a score a disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole."

No term "expert," no "errorless play." This will bring it in line with the design definitions. It's really all that's needed since par in the rules is just a reference for late penalties.

One of these upcoming elements that I didn't have a chance to get in this book is changing the Glossary definiton of Par to: "As determined by the director, a score a disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole."



Why not change the definition of par to "a number, decided by the director"? that way, you would better convey the fact that par means next to nothing in your world.

When I was applying to colleges, I only wish the SAT committee had standardized scores for my level of knowledge. I would have made a 1600. Of course, so would have everyone else.

Exactly, and you could have gone to a college suitable for that skill level. :p

The encouraging thing here is that we are all focused on the need to create a meaningful and useful par definition; even if we do not yet agree on the method. That is a plus.

I have been told by reliable sources that most players don't give a hoot about this, nor really to most organizers. I believe them and respect their desire to work on other things they believe are of more significant importance (to them).

I pursue it because I think it is of significant importance and that there is a very strong likelihood of it being of interest and importance to a large number of players in the near future (primarily for handicapping, where I think this sport, as far as recreationally (which will be the foundation of the sport) is headed. I also think it will help in the effort to bring legitimacy to our sport as far as marketability and mainstream acceptance.

I am interested in knowing why you came to the conclusion that Par should be considered something different than the score a disc golfer should shoot on a hole or for a round. Isn�t that the precise intent of par? Even in BG?

Scratch Score Average is the precise score a Scratch Disc Golfer is expected to shoot on a course. If any player shoots that score, regardless of rating, then they have shot 1000 golf, or the Scratch Disc Golfer average. What sort of empirical data, that is not subjective in nature, could you hope to gather that has the elegance of this? It seems like you are attempting to reverse engineer something that doesn�t need reverse engineering.

What I get from what you are saying, and what others with the ball golf style of par are saying is that par should not be the known scratch score, but be that plus one throw in order to allow a birdie opportunity on every hole.

To that I would answer that it is not the responsibility of Par, per se, to provide birdie possibilities but rather the responsibility of the course pro/designer to do that. If you play a hole and beyond it having an SSA of 2.2 you just know that getting a 3 on it is essentially a bogie for your skill level or division, then slapping Par 3 on the tee sign does not make it play like a Par 3, nor do any manipulations of logic. What would make it a Par 3 is adjusting it so that when you shoot a 3 on it you have not lost a stroke, on average to the rest of the field, and that shooting a 2 is gaining a stroke, and a 4 is loosing one. This is my understanding of par. SSA as an indicator and tool has nearly been flawless in affirming this sort of understanding out on the course. I don�t use it as law and verse, but I have yet to see a hole where the SSA did not nearly dead on indicate the sensate par of the hole.

The encouraging thing here is that we are all focused on the need to create a meaningful and useful par definition; even if we do not yet agree on the method. That is a plus.

I have been told by reliable sources that most players don't give a hoot about this, nor really to most organizers. I believe them and respect their desire to work on other things they believe are of more significant importance (to them).

I pursue it because I think it is of significant importance and that there is a very strong likelihood of it being of interest and importance to a large number of players in the near future (primarily for handicapping, where I think this sport, as far as recreationally (which will be the foundation of the sport) is headed. I also think it will help in the effort to bring legitimacy to our sport as far as marketability and mainstream acceptance.

I am interested in knowing why you came to the conclusion that Par should be considered something different than the score a disc golfer should shoot on a hole or for a round. Isn�t that the precise intent of par? Even in BG?

Scratch Score Average is the precise score a Scratch Disc Golfer is expected to shoot on a course. If any player shoots that score, regardless of rating, then they have shot 1000 golf, or the Scratch Disc Golfer average. What sort of empirical data, that is not subjective in nature, could you hope to gather that has the elegance of this? It seems like you are attempting to reverse engineer something that doesn�t need reverse engineering.

What I get from what you are saying, and what others with the ball golf style of par are saying is that par should not be the known scratch score, but be that plus one throw in order to allow a birdie opportunity on every hole.

To that I would answer that it is not the responsibility of Par, per se, to provide birdie possibilities but rather the responsibility of the course pro/designer to do that. If you play a hole and beyond it having an SSA of 2.2 you just know that getting a 3 on it is essentially a bogie for your skill level or division, then slapping Par 3 on the tee sign does not make it play like a Par 3, nor do any manipulations of logic. What would make it a Par 3 is adjusting it so that when you shoot a 3 on it you have not lost a stroke, on average to the rest of the field, and that shooting a 2 is gaining a stroke, and a 4 is loosing one. This is my understanding of par. SSA as an indicator and tool has nearly been flawless in affirming this sort of understanding out on the course. I don�t use it as law and verse, but I have yet to see a hole where the SSA did not nearly dead on indicate the sensate par of the hole.

One of these upcoming elements that I didn't have a chance to get in this book is changing the Glossary definiton of Par to: "As determined by the director, a score a disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole."



Why not change the definition of par to "a number, decided by the director"? that way, you would better convey the fact that par means next to nothing in your world.




James, actually that is how par is currently decided-- by the course Pro or the TD. It makes no difference how well they understand the issues involved. For this reason, at this point the word "par" is worthless in DG.

But why not be bold and go all the way? How's this for a definition? "Par - whatever a player feels like."

Many people may not care about the mechanics of how par is determined, just as most people don't care to know how a car engine works. But everyone who plays a sport with the word "golf" in it cares about par. To verify this all you have to do is to take someone out to play for the first time and they'll invariably ask you, "What is par for this hole (or course)?"

Many people may not care about the mechanics of how par is determined, just as most people don't care to know how a car engine works. But everyone who plays a sport with the word "golf" in it cares about par. To verify this all you have to do is to take someone out to play for the first time and they'll invariably ask you, "What is par for this hole (or course)?"



How would you like to be able to answer them is the question we are discussing here, right?

For me it is easy. Par is what a Scratch Disc Golfer is expected to score on average. I have about a 4 stroke handicap. So I average around 4 strokes over par depending on the length and foliage of a course.

How do you know what a Scratch Disc Golfer scores on average?

PDGA Player Ratings provides SSAs for every course used during PDGA Competition. There are also calculators and Par Forcaster tools developed from that same system.

Your turn Lowe.

Par for a championship course is what a Scratch Golfer should expect to shoot without mistakes.

Not their average score.

Also there are too many non-championship (the term is executive in BG) courses in the ground to base everything on scratch golfers.

Par for a championship course is what a Scratch Golfer should expect to shoot without mistakes.

Not their average score.



So that would seem to imply that par should actually be a lower score than SSA, which in the case of BG Par and CR Par applied to DG courses certainly is not the case; where both either slightly or greatly inflate the Par over SSA.

Also, on courses where you know the SSA, I'm assuming you know a few, and you shoot a round that hits the SSA, do you feel like you have played Scratch Golf? By that I mean do you think you played at a level at par or even slightly below par?

How about on a course with an SSA of 44 and you shoot a 54? Do you feel like you shot "Par Golf"? Well, that is precisely what CR and BG Par would have you believe.


Also there are too many non-championship (the term is executive in BG) courses in the ground to base everything on scratch golfers.



To bad for them. We have a system that can provide a meaningful and useful par for all disc golf course regardless of skill level the designer intended them for. We win! :)

Don't get me wrong, I take issue with hole designs that necessarily preclude the possibility of birdie for my skill level, but in my opinion that is a matter for the designer not the par standard.

Par for a championship course is what a Scratch Golfer should expect to shoot without mistakes.

Not their average score.



So that would seem to imply that par should actually be a lower score than SSA, which in the case of BG Par and CR Par applied to DG courses certainly is not the case; where both either slightly or greatly inflate the Par over SSA.

Also, on courses where you know the SSA, I'm assuming you know a few, and you shoot a round that hits the SSA, do you feel like you have played Scratch Golf? By that I mean do you think you played at a level at par or even slightly below par?

How about on a course with an SSA of 44 and you shoot a 54? Do you feel like you shot "Par Golf"? Well, that is precisely what CR and BG Par would have you believe.


Also there are too many non-championship (the term is executive in BG) courses in the ground to base everything on scratch golfers.



Too bad for them. We have a system that can provide a meaningful and useful par for all disc golf courses regardless of skill level the designer intended them for. We win! :)

Don't get me wrong, I take issue with hole designs that necessarily preclude the possibility of birdie for my skill level, but in my opinion that is a matter for the designer not the par standard. If the designer wants my skill level to be able to get birdies (one under par) on a hole then they need to redesign the hole so that it averages the stipulated par but has a decent spread above and below score wise. This is as close as I am likely to come to saying Par 2s should not exist on PDGA competition course layouts.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Par for a championship course is what a Scratch Golfer should expect to shoot without mistakes.

Not their average score.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So that would seem to imply that par should actually be a lower score than SSA, which in the case of BG Par and CR Par applied to DG courses certainly is not the case; where both either slightly or greatly inflate the Par over SSA.

Also, on courses where you know the SSA, I'm assuming you know a few, and you shoot a round that hits the SSA, do you feel like you have played Scratch Golf? By that I mean do you think you played at a level at par or even slightly below par?

How about on a course with an SSA of 44 and you shoot a 54? Do you feel like you shot "Par Golf"? Well, that is precisely what CR and BG Par would have you believe.





That is how I see Gary's statements also.

According to that then most holes in the world should be considered Par 2's. If a scratch golfer hits their line errorlessly on most holes then he should be within 30 feet of the pin. An errorless shot from there would be in the basket for a 2. I could be wrong, but I dont think that is what you would want to see Gary .

A scratch disc golfer has been determined to be a player whose rating averages 1000. Par should, imo, reflect what a 1000 player is expected to shoot (on the Gold tees) on average. Since it is easier to use round numbers then we must round the average off to the nearest whole number to get Par, for the most part.

Not too make things anymore complicated but (and maybe this has been brought up before and i missed it):

Use SSA on existing courses to determine par. In the most extreme case you could have a course with a Par of 54 but the SSA be 45 if every hole averaged 2.5 or 63 (62.82 to be exact) if every hole averaged 3.49 for a Scratch Disc Golfer.

As a difficulty factor there could be a scale ranging from +9 to -9. So if you had a Gold Par 54 that averaged 45 then it would be a Par 54 with a Difficulty Factor (probably need a better name) of -9.

It has been discussed before. Both of those extreme courses wouldn't be ideal primarily due to lack of hole balance with scoring averages all close to each other. In addition, no Gold course should ever be designed with an SSA less than maybe 49 (per PDGA guidelines, in fact), and that's borderline. Any course with an SSA of 45 is either likely or should be a White or Red level course with it being a weak Blue level option.

Likewise, we're not in too much danger of finding a course with most of the holes in the 3.3-3.5 range unless the designer is deliberately sadistic. These are holes where deuces are rare and preventing 4s on every hole is the primary challenge. I'm guessing this would be the course people would be forced to play for eternity if they're barred from the pearly gates.

Then I wasn't clear enough. Realistic expectations should always be above SSA (maybe that's the problem with my game, my expectations are too low).

That is like saying a Pro expects to hit every 60' putt.

I didn't say what a Pro wants to shoot, but what he expects to shoot. It should be above the SSA, because every pro should not expect to can every long birdie putt, and should not expect to park every hole. Just as they should not expect to hit every tree on the course.

And yes by that standard, most of the holes in the world are Par 2s. But by any SSA method, they are par 2s as well.

Then I wasn't clear enough. Realistic expectations should always be above SSA (maybe that's the problem with my game, my expectations are too low).

That is like saying a Pro expects to hit every 60' putt.


Not really Gary, SSA is like saying this is what a Scratch Disc Golfer expects to get as a score for this hole and this course as determined by Scratch Score Average and then World Class Par (averaged and rounded SSAs with a touch of Course Pro input).


I didn't say what a Pro wants to shoot, but what he expects to shoot. It should be above the SSA, because every pro should not expect to can every long birdie putt, and should not expect to park every hole. Just as they should not expect to hit every tree on the course.



And I didn�t say what a Pro wants to shoot or even �expects� to shoot, but what a Scratch Disc Golfer would score on average IS PAR. If it is above SSA, then you are talking about a below average round for a Scratch Disc Golfer. And though you or I might be happy shooting one or two throws above SSA, I guarantee that Kenny, Barry and Nate would not be too tickled. I have been lucky enough to shoot some 1000+ rounds and I am telling you that it is a whole different phenomenon than shooting in the mid 900s. Mainly you are putting like a daemon.

Now I have heard folks wanting to make 950 the scratch golf standard or even somewhere between 950 and 1000, but for me that would be greatly cheapening the standard. I�ve shot rounds in those ranges and there is no way you are going to convince me that they are �expert�, �scratch� or �par� golf. For the most part those sorts of rounds involve a lot of missed putts and at least 3 to 6 bad drives or upshots.


And yes by that standard, most of the holes in the world are Par 2s. But by any SSA method, they are par 2s as well.



Only at the GOLD level are they mostly Par 2s. I doubt that there are more than a handful of holes in the world, used for PDGA competition that would be Par 2s at the RED level (and if they exist, viva le difference!). I am more concerned with the play involved on a hole with an SSA below 2.5, between 3.4 and 3.1, 4.4 and 4.1, etc., than I am about what we call them. Those holes for the most part stink, for lack of a better word. Particularly for BLUE level players. They are the wake me up when they are over holes. This is not universally true, but I haven�t found too many holes that average in those ranges that would qualify as special experiences. And getting the best possible score (other than ace) on them is a total yawner, and in no way feels like a birdie, but more like par.

The overriding principle for SSA based Par is that it is a standard applicable to all courses, past, present and future, and that it applies uniformly to all players, regardless of skill level. These are 2 principles not available, and certainly not as readily available, in CR or BG Par where context is lost for both player and course due to lack of uniform and verifiable standard.

Chuck, I was just posting those #'s as an easy example. What if the difficulty rating was on a +5 to -5 scale. Any course outside those boundries must be declared inaproproiate for that level and dropped/raised to a color level within the difficulty rating boundries?

Rodney spent a lot of time trying to figure out some form of difficulty factor and couldn't find it. If you believe in using scoring averages as the primary way to set par for a particular skill level, then the difference betwen par and the scoring average for the course primarily tells you how well the challenge and variety of holes was balanced by the designer. If the average is below par, like it usually is, it's a typical course where the reward is a birdie for shooting well, not great.

A designer "on top of their game" will get the scoring average close to par. The more wooded the property, the easier it is to do. It's almost impossible to do this on open sites because you're faced with several holes that will have two prominent scores unless major tricks are done around the green (elevated pins, slopes, treacherous OB). The bias will be toward the second most common score being a birdie on the hole, which cumulatively drives the average away from par.

If the hole is designed where bogey is the second most common score, they will be the dreaded 3.1-3.4 or 4.1-4.4 holes that Nick (and most people) dislike. However, when there are intersting hazards and enough foliage, holes with this scoring range are necessary to balance the course. When done well, they have a scoring spread that includes enough birdies and enough scores above bogey that getting a par is a solid accomplishment. An example of a balanced course in terms of par vs SSA is Nockamixon. At least for Worlds, it was accomplished with several flukey and unfair holes that spread the averages, not because they wanted to do it but because they weren't allowed to clear some trees. However, with the pending course changes, perhaps they'll be able to maintain the tight scoring average to par relationship they started with.

I quickly made up this table based on a local course and used the Est. Hole Scoring Average Based on Eff.Length/Foliage Chart.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole#</td><td>Footage</td><td>Gold</td><td>Blue</td><td>White</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>280</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>265</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>360</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.7
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>310</td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>395</td><td>3</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.9
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>260</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.1
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>240</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.1
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>270</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>3</td><td>3.2
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>235</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>475</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.1
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>290</td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>210</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.9
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>275</td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>325</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.7
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>290</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>3</td><td>3.2
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>315</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>295</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>255</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Score </td><td></td><td>47</td><td>51.9</td><td>56.4</td><td>60.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Rounded Score Average</td><td></td><td>47</td><td>52</td><td>56</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td>Rounded Hole Scores</td><td></td><td>49</td><td>54</td><td>55</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Difficulty Rating</td><td></td><td>-2</td><td>-2</td><td>1</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

It is appearent that this course is not a suitable challenge for Gold level players.

While it is an appropriate challenge for Blue level players it is still a rather easy course for them with many holes pushing close to par 2 range.

White seems like the best fit for this course, realistically and statistically. The balance of difficult Par 3's and easier Par 3's is very good.

This could be a Red level course but imo the balance of difficult par 3's and easier par 3's is just not fitting.

I went ahead and added in the Difficulty Rating just to see how it looked.

This shows how not getting enough detailed information might be misleading. It would most likely be a better course for Blue than White unless the course is relatively wooded. It appears several of those holes will not have a good scoring spread for white level and be frustrating from a birdie potential standpoint.

Typically, if a course is good for one level, then about half the holes will be good for the level on either side of it. So, a Blue course would have half the holes good for Gold and half for White, not necessarily the same holes, but likely.

Courses that are good for one level will usually work well for the level two steps from it (i.e. Gold and white are compatible and Blue and Red playing from the same tees. However, a Red course will be a birdie fest for Blue (par 2s) and a championship Gold or Blue course can be brutal for White or Red, respectively.

The course is not very wooded at all. It does have some good elevation changes which I accounted for but also has quite a bit of OB which was unaccounted for in the example.

After playing the course once or twice a 950 rated player would be hating himself if he only shot 52. For that matter a 900 rated player wouldn't be very happy with a 55 after knowing the course a little bit.

I put this example up for the people who don't like the idea of using SSA to get Par. I was hoping it could shed some light on the process of setting par for a certain level based off of the SSA or forecasted SSA.

According to that then most holes in the world should be considered Par 2's. If a scratch golfer hits their line errorlessly on most holes then he should be within 30 feet of the pin. An errorless shot from there would be in the basket for a 2. I could be wrong, but I dont think that is what you would want to see Gary .


This is an important point. Whether you call that hole a 2 or a 3, the basket is in too easy of a position if players are expected to get within 30 ft. on every good drive/upshot. That falls into my category of " HAGWAP - hit a gap, win a prize" shots. This is a huge design problem that cannot be solved by creating a definition of par that glosses it over.

Chuck's suggestion of creating smaller targets to address this problem actually makes sense, but there'd be the difficult task of swapping out baskets everywhere.

Going forward, I think the best way to approach the par controversy is through a design-based approach. Under this concept, par under all three of the existing definitions will be the same.

I make no effort to hide the fact that I have a ball golf based approach to design and par. I think the starting point for all hole designs is the "green". I think it's important for a designer to identify and define the green and then work backwords to the tee. It'd be helpful to mark the defining outer line with orange flags or have a mental image of the flags.

It appears we've made progress in breaking the mindset that the green is defined by the 10 meter line. Conceptually I equate the 10 meter circle with a single placement area on the green. Golf greens have several distinct areas where the pin can be placed.

Under ideal conditions I think that all disc golf holes should have 2-4 basket locations. Even if financial considerations prohibit installing alternate sleaves initially, I think it's important to design with future alternates in mind.

I think the model used by the PGA for pin placements is extremely useful. Each of the general location areas on a golf green is numbered according to difficulty 1-6. The pins are set each day so that the total pin difficulty is set at 54. It's a myth that all the pins are set in the most difficult position for Sunday.

For disc golf, regardless of how many alternate positions are available it's instructive that some pins should be 1's where a well executed drive/approach is expected to end up near the 10 meter line, some should be 4's where a well executed drive/approach is expected to end up within 20 meters and some should be 6's where a well-executed drive/approach should end up within 30 meters and a gutsy run for the "sucker" pin could end up parked or could end up in trouble where a bogey or double bogey is likely.


Some disc golf greens may have a diameter of 40-50 meters and some may be as small as 20 meters in diameter (i.e. #17 at Winthrop). Disc golf greens may be circular, crescent shaped, or look like a gerry-mandered congressional district, but what they all have in common is that from any point "on the green" to the basket location it should be expected for the player to get down in 2 or 1. PGA tour players average from 1.7 to 1.9 for putts on greens in regulation. Tiger Woods made over 300 putts from within 5 feet in a row early this year. Tiger's amazing streak would correspond to 10-30 footers in disc golf. The vast majority of golf putts on greens hit in regulation are longer than that. (some places on the green will average over 2 with some 3-putts, but the expected value will still be a 2)

The conceptual green area will get smaller as we view the design for different ability levels. i.e. an unobstructed shot of 120 ft. may be considered "on the green" for gold players and that number may shrink to 100,80,60 for blue, white, red. (those numbers are for example only)

Why is it so important to define the "green"? That's the only way that we can bring CR, BG, and SSA par into harmony, and I think that's our best chance to create a standard of par that serves as a guideline for new designs, gives players a meaningful comparison of their scores from course to course, and is easily comprehended by newbies that have grown up with at least a basic understanding of what "par" means in golf.

For a new design, once the "green" has been defined it is easier to look at the shot from the middle of the fairway or tee and create the appropriate level of difficulty. For the PGA tour last year the average greens in regulation varied from 74% down to 55%. (These #'s don't separate out which shots into the green were played from the fairway and which were played from the rough. For a course design perspective it might be useful to use 70-90% of shots from the tee or fairway would hit the green and 10-30% would miss the green.)

So, a course designer could stand in the "middle of the fairway" facing the "green" and think, "I want to find the spot where roughly 80% of my intended user group will "hit the green". That spot could either be the A-/B+ landing zone on a par 4 or the tee on a par 3. I've seen far too many par 3 disc golf holes where 90-95% of the intended user group will "hit the green".

No matter what design or par philosophy one subscribes to, I think the proof is in the hole distribution pudding. Taking a sample from the appropriate skill level for which the tees were intended on each hole can give a good idea how well the design played out. As I've said before I believe that ideal score distributions are 10-30% birdie or eagle, 40-80% par, and 10-30% bogey or worse. Some effort should be made to strive for symetric distributions and to balance holes that skew under par with those that skew over par. These ranges give lots of room for design philosophy and I would argue that holes that fall outside these ranges should at least be looked at for potential changes.

In summary, I think that the best future designs will be created with par in mind and scoring averages will validate hole par bringing CR/BG/SSA par together.

On a tangent: I love the work that Dave Mac has done with re-designing courses in St. Louis. I'd love to see all existing courses re-evaluated by designers with continual upgrades made as possible. I think it would be great to designate some existing courses as "classic" or "historic" disc golf courses that serve has great competitive courses for white/red players, good practice courses for gold/blue players, and celebrate the roots of our sport.

I quickly made up this table based on a local course and used the Est. Hole Scoring Average Based on Eff.Length/Foliage Chart.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Hole#</td><td>Footage</td><td>Gold</td><td>Blue</td><td>White</td><td>Red
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>280</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>265</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>360</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.7
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>310</td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>395</td><td>3</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.9
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>260</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.1
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>240</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.1
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>270</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>3</td><td>3.2
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>235</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>475</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.1
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>290</td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>210</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.9
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>275</td><td>2.7</td><td>3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>325</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.7
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>290</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>3</td><td>3.2
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>315</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>295</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>255</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>3
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Score </td><td>*</td><td>47</td><td>51.9</td><td>56.4</td><td>60.4
</td></tr><tr><td>Rounded Score Average</td><td>*</td><td>47</td><td>52</td><td>56</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td>Rounded Hole Scores</td><td>*</td><td>49</td><td>54</td><td>55</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Difficulty Rating</td><td>*</td><td>-2</td><td>-2</td><td>1</td><td>2
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

It is appearent that this course is not a suitable challenge for Gold level players.

While it is an appropriate challenge for Blue level players it is still a rather easy course for them with many holes pushing close to par 2 range.

White seems like the best fit for this course, realistically and statistically. The balance of difficult Par 3's and easier Par 3's is very good.

This could be a Red level course but imo the balance of difficult par 3's and easier par 3's is just not fitting.

I went ahead and added in the Difficulty Rating just to see how it looked.


For the above example, I'd probably be tempted to assign "Recreational Par" to these holes. (I think some people have called this "Green par".)

Using rec/green par, maybe there would be:

--two (2) par 5s (holes 5 and 10),
--six (6) par 4s (holes 1, 3, 4, 11, 13 and 14),
--ten (10) par 3s
==
--course par = 64

Otherwise, Red par would have only four par 4s; White par would have two par 4s; and Blue/Gold par would be all par 3s. Of these, only the Red par assignments sound like there's at least a little variety on the course.

Anyway, with little variety like this, seems to me the course was set up more or less for recreational play. If I'm right and rec play is what is being targeted, rec par might make the most sense.

One item that jumps out as weak in the example course's design is the low hole length variety score. A perfect score on variety is when the effective lengths of at least 10 holes fall outside +/- 20% from the average length of the holes. I don't know how much elevation is on this example course. But if there's not much, the hole length variety has only 4 holes outside the +/- 20% range (3,5,9,10) and two of those just barely outside. This variety element is an important part of the Design section of the PDGA Course Evaluation. The higher the variety score, the more likely there will be a nice mix of par 3s, 4s and 5s for whatever skill level the course is designed for.

Approx. Elevation on the example :
#1 flat
#2 about 3 ft uphill
#3 about 8-10 ft downhill
#4 about 10-12 ft downhill
#5 15-20ft uphill
#6 5-8ft downhill
#7 about 10 ft uphill
#8 about 3-5ft uphill
#9 flat
#10 5-8ft dowhill
#11 3-5ft downhill
#12 2-3ft uphill
#13 about 10 ft dowhill
#14 8-10ft uphill
#15 12-15ft downhill
#16 8-10ft downhill
#17 10-12ft uphill
#18 10-12ft downhill

Of course I havent actually measured so that is a rough guesstimate.

Multiply the elevations by 3 and add or substract that from the length. That gives effective length. Calculate the average. Then, count how many holes fall outside +/- 20% from that.

7 holes fall outside the -/+20% using the effectie length.

Btw, we have steered away from my point in posting that example in the first place.

I used the Chart because I don't have hole-by-hole scores handy, I could probably get them but then I would not have been able to post the example earlier for this conversation. Either way, I was showing how simple this part of the process of assigning pars using SSA is.

I was going to just completely make-up numbers for holes for the example but felt using an existing course would be more effective.

I like the feedback and all and I think this course is an example of what many existing courses out there are like. So maybe it is a worthwhile discussion but the original point was to provide an example of how one may go about assigning Pars and color skill level to existing courses and how easy the process can be.

Scott, I was VERY happy with my 53 there this past weekend and I am a 988 player. :D

Awesome round btw. I tried everything in my power to stay as close to 54 as possible. I honestly did not think anyone in attendence would be able to pull it off.

Using effective hole lengths would also have worked for your example.

One mistake you'll see made when courses get upgraded is assuming you need to add length to every hole because discs are going farther. Rather than add 50 feet to each hole, better to not add any to some and add 200 to others. If you lengthen each one about the same, you might perpetuate a course with low length variety. In addition, just because discs are flying farther, it doesn't mean the accuracy is any better. You can wreck a hole with good distribution and make it worse by making it 60 feet longer.

But a 950 player wouldn't be happy with that score right? :D

Chuck in the example i did use the effective hole legth to get bthe scoring average off the chart. I just posted the actual distance of the holes.

I am sure you weren't reffering to our recent "upgrade"(was actually more of a down grade). We recently changed quite a few holes. We pretty much just had to do whatever it took to make some of the course better after the Rita devastation while trying not to change the feel of the course and by leaving as much as possible alone becasue of the traditional folks around here. (Course was installed in 1990 and until Rita had never even been tweeked.)

Matt, a 950 rated player wouldnt be happy with shooting a 52 in NORMAL or maybe even something that even remotely resembled normal playing conditions ;)

So 40mph sustained winds isn't normal? :DCatch you later I am going to bed. :D

My comment about upgrading had nothing to do with this course, just commenting on a general misconception out there that making reachable holes longer is necessary because discs fly farther. Accuracy isn't any better. In fact, a case could be made that accuracy might have gone down because the new plastic skips away farther. It's the par 4 and 5 holes that need to be made longer due to the longer flying plastic.

Matt, a 950 rated player wouldnt be happy with shooting a 52 in NORMAL or maybe even something that even remotely resembled normal playing conditions ;)


So this was a course that had an SSA of around 45 or 46 in previous tournaments, but in the last tournament a score of 53 rated 1009?

Does the Pleasure Island course play that much harder since Rita, or is that 7-8 throw difference mostly due to the bad weather that day?

35 mph sustained winds ALL day with gusts over 40mph. The wind never even hinted at slowing down the entire day. The course itself is actually slightly easier since Rita

Your turn Lowe.



"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."

Sound familiar?

Either this post got lost in the thread drift shuffle or I've sufficiently endeared myself with this crowd to have been put on everyone's ignore list. For the former possibility I've reposted as a courtesy.



According to that then most holes in the world should be considered Par 2's. If a scratch golfer hits their line errorlessly on most holes then he should be within 30 feet of the pin. An errorless shot from there would be in the basket for a 2. I could be wrong, but I dont think that is what you would want to see Gary .


This is an important point. Whether you call that hole a 2 or a 3, the basket is in too easy of a position if players are expected to get within 30 ft. on every good drive/upshot. That falls into my category of " HAGWAP - hit a gap, win a prize" shots. This is a huge design problem that cannot be solved by creating a definition of par that glosses it over.

Chuck's suggestion of creating smaller targets to address this problem actually makes sense, but there'd be the difficult task of swapping out baskets everywhere.

Going forward, I think the best way to approach the par controversy is through a design-based approach. Under this concept, par under all three of the existing definitions will be the same.

I make no effort to hide the fact that I have a ball golf based approach to design and par. I think the starting point for all hole designs is the "green". I think it's important for a designer to identify and define the green and then work backwords to the tee. It'd be helpful to mark the defining outer line with orange flags or have a mental image of the flags.

It appears we've made progress in breaking the mindset that the green is defined by the 10 meter line. Conceptually I equate the 10 meter circle with a single placement area on the green. Golf greens have several distinct areas where the pin can be placed.

Under ideal conditions I think that all disc golf holes should have 2-4 basket locations. Even if financial considerations prohibit installing alternate sleaves initially, I think it's important to design with future alternates in mind.

I think the model used by the PGA for pin placements is extremely useful. Each of the general location areas on a golf green is numbered according to difficulty 1-6. The pins are set each day so that the total pin difficulty is set at 54. It's a myth that all the pins are set in the most difficult position for Sunday.

For disc golf, regardless of how many alternate positions are available it's instructive that some pins should be 1's where a well executed drive/approach is expected to end up near the 10 meter line, some should be 4's where a well executed drive/approach is expected to end up within 20 meters and some should be 6's where a well-executed drive/approach should end up within 30 meters and a gutsy run for the "sucker" pin could end up parked or could end up in trouble where a bogey or double bogey is likely.


Some disc golf greens may have a diameter of 40-50 meters and some may be as small as 20 meters in diameter (i.e. #17 at Winthrop). Disc golf greens may be circular, crescent shaped, or look like a gerry-mandered congressional district, but what they all have in common is that from any point "on the green" to the basket location it should be expected for the player to get down in 2 or 1. PGA tour players average from 1.7 to 1.9 for putts on greens in regulation. Tiger Woods made over 300 putts from within 5 feet in a row early this year. Tiger's amazing streak would correspond to 10-30 footers in disc golf. The vast majority of golf putts on greens hit in regulation are longer than that. (some places on the green will average over 2 with some 3-putts, but the expected value will still be a 2)

The conceptual green area will get smaller as we view the design for different ability levels. i.e. an unobstructed shot of 120 ft. may be considered "on the green" for gold players and that number may shrink to 100,80,60 for blue, white, red. (those numbers are for example only)

Why is it so important to define the "green"? That's the only way that we can bring CR, BG, and SSA par into harmony, and I think that's our best chance to create a standard of par that serves as a guideline for new designs, gives players a meaningful comparison of their scores from course to course, and is easily comprehended by newbies that have grown up with at least a basic understanding of what "par" means in golf.

For a new design, once the "green" has been defined it is easier to look at the shot from the middle of the fairway or tee and create the appropriate level of difficulty. For the PGA tour last year the average greens in regulation varied from 74% down to 55%. (These #'s don't separate out which shots into the green were played from the fairway and which were played from the rough. For a course design perspective it might be useful to use 70-90% of shots from the tee or fairway would hit the green and 10-30% would miss the green.)

So, a course designer could stand in the "middle of the fairway" facing the "green" and think, "I want to find the spot where roughly 80% of my intended user group will "hit the green". That spot could either be the A-/B+ landing zone on a par 4 or the tee on a par 3. I've seen far too many par 3 disc golf holes where 90-95% of the intended user group will "hit the green".

No matter what design or par philosophy one subscribes to, I think the proof is in the hole distribution pudding. Taking a sample from the appropriate skill level for which the tees were intended on each hole can give a good idea how well the design played out. As I've said before I believe that ideal score distributions are 10-30% birdie or eagle, 40-80% par, and 10-30% bogey or worse. Some effort should be made to strive for symetric distributions and to balance holes that skew under par with those that skew over par. These ranges give lots of room for design philosophy and I would argue that holes that fall outside these ranges should at least be looked at for potential changes.

In summary, I think that the best future designs will be created with par in mind and scoring averages will validate hole par bringing CR/BG/SSA par together.

On a tangent: I love the work that Dave Mac has done with re-designing courses in St. Louis. I'd love to see all existing courses re-evaluated by designers with continual upgrades made as possible. I think it would be great to designate some existing courses as "classic" or "historic" disc golf courses that serve has great competitive courses for white/red players, good practice courses for gold/blue players, and celebrate the roots of our sport.

This is an important point. Whether you call that hole a 2 or a 3, the basket is in too easy of a position if players are expected to get within 30 ft. on every good drive/upshot. That falls into my category of " HAGWAP - hit a gap, win a prize" shots. This is a huge design problem that cannot be solved by creating a definition of par that glosses it over.




It was never said that every good shot would be within 30 feet. What was said was that an Errorless shot would be within 30 feet.

I dont think anyone is trying to gloss over design issues. The fact is that there are 1500+ course installed that mostly follow no standard and there is no real way to compare one to the other. It is not realistic to expect everyone or even a lot of people to go redesign their courses that have been around for many years. Sure you could call them "historic courses" or whateveer but you would be doing that on almost ALL courses in the world today. In that case there would only be a handful of "real" course in the world.

Your idea of a green in my head appears to be those type holes that pretty much everyone gets a 3 on (on a par 3) except for those occassional extra long putts or the occassional 3 putt bogey. Just doesnt sound very fun to me, but I could be reading you wrong.

I think the model used by the PGA for pin placements is extremely useful. Each of the general location areas on a golf green is numbered according to difficulty 1-6. The pins are set each day so that the total pin difficulty is set at 54. It's a myth that all the pins are set in the most difficult position for Sunday.

For disc golf, regardless of how many alternate positions are available it's instructive that some pins should be 1's where a well executed drive/approach is expected to end up near the 10 meter line, some should be 4's where a well executed drive/approach is expected to end up within 20 meters and some should be 6's where a well-executed drive/approach should end up within 30 meters and a gutsy run for the "sucker" pin could end up parked or could end up in trouble where a bogey or double bogey is likely.




I do like this idea. I dont see that it is very possible for most places due to limited funds and space though.

My main concern is to have a Par system not only for new courses but can be applied to the many courses that are already here. Yes, the standards for design of future courses are very important but I just can't stop thinking about the existing courses and the new public park courses that have limitations.

Here is that list of questions I mentioned a while back. Thanks in advanced for your answers.
1) Why would the director determine par? Shouldn�t it be the course pro/designer?
2) What standards do they all follow to get the par you are talking about?
3) Is it able to be duplicated? Is it so simple that we can trust all directors to do a first rate job with it?
4) How do they determine the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole?
5) How do they know what an expert disc golfer is; how do you define him/her?
6) Errorless play? Is this something that can be uniformly understood and applied?
7) What is a close range throw?
8) On what data do you base such a designation?
9) Is it uniform for all skill levels? If so, then why have different tee pads or pins on different greens?
I am confident that I can answer each of these questions using SSA/WCP. Can you say the same of CR Par? If so please demonstrate so.

I suspect that you could, but it would primarily be an exercise in taking SSA/WCP back through reverse engineering to the vast complexities you can find out on a course and in players and conditions. If not that, then something as untenable as number of throws by an undefined skill level player, throwing distances undefined by skill level, within don�t forget the hypothetical number of throws from an undefined by skill level distance to hole out.

10) How do you handicap holes using that definition of par for use in league play where there is a wide range of skill levels?
11) How do you apply these pars to fairly penalize late players to PDGA rounds?

Or to make all of this alot more simple:
1) What method do you use to determine an "expert disc golfer"?

Again, thanks for your answers, I look forward to reading them.

Man, this is gooood reading....

<font color="blue">Even though these are directed a Lowe, I'll go through them.
First a couple of question of my own. What is wrong with using the SSA along with non-SSA based par
definitions to answer some of your performance related questions ?
Doesn't BG use hole scoring averages to help determine the hardest and easiest holes on the course ?</font>

Here is that list of questions I mentioned a while back. Thanks in advanced for your answers.
1) Why would the director determine par? Shouldn�t it be the course pro/designer?
<font color="blue"> The Course pro/designer should be the one setting par/redesigning holes</font>
2) What standards do they all follow to get the par you are talking about?
<font color="blue">I think he has covered that in depth. It is based on hole length and foliage. I think the basic workings are the same as the PDGA calculator, though the specific formulas may be a little different.</font>
3) Is it able to be duplicated? Is it so simple that we can trust all directors to do a first rate job with it?
<font color="blue">If it's a spreadsheet where you type in numbers and get answers, I expect most of us could handle it.</font>
4) How do they determine the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole?
<font color="blue">The PDGA course designers group has stated what the effective driving distance is for each skill level. From there the calculations can be built that determine effective par of a given hole.</font>
5) How do they know what an expert disc golfer is; how do you define him/her?
<font color="blue">The PDGA gathered the information based on players with known skill levels. While I don't agree with them, they have placed the dividing line at a 1000 player rating.</font>
6) Errorless play? Is this something that can be uniformly understood and applied?
<font color="blue">Yes, Errorless play would be defined as drives that cover their full effective length per skill level and are not more than 5 degrees (about 26' at 300') off axis and 10% off desired length.</font>
7) What is a close range throw?
<font color="blue">That was covered as well. I think that a close range throw was 1/3 of the effective driving distance for a given skill level.</font>
8) On what data do you base such a designation?
<font color="blue">Who needs data for that determination.</font>
9) Is it uniform for all skill levels? If so, then why have different tee pads or pins on different greens?
<font color="blue">It is a uniform ratio for all skill levels.</font>

I am confident that I can answer each of these questions using SSA/WCP. Can you say the same of CR Par? If so please demonstrate so. <font color="blue">can you do it if the course has never been played by rated golfers ?</font>

I suspect that you could, but it would primarily be an exercise in taking SSA/WCP back through reverse engineering to the vast complexities you can find out on a course and in players and conditions. If not that, then something as untenable as number of throws by an undefined skill level player, throwing distances undefined by skill level, within don�t forget the hypothetical number of throws from an undefined by skill level distance to hole out.

10) How do you handicap holes using that definition of par for use in league play where there is a wide range of skill levels?
<font color="blue"></font>
11) How do you apply these pars to fairly penalize late players to PDGA rounds?
<font color="blue">You are penalized by listed course par. If you are a Pro playing in a tournament hosted on a white course, you know that you are going to be hit very hard if you are late. If you are a rec player on a blue course (without rec tees), you catch a break.</font>

Or to make all of this alot more simple:
1) What method do you use to determine an "expert disc golfer"?
<font color="blue">950/960 DG relates well to a scratch ball golfer - All PGA Tour pros (what I equate to our 1000 rated golfers) are well beyond scratch golfers.</font>

Gary, I'm curious on what basis you feel the scratch level for DG isn't set properly?

It depends on your understanding of what a scratch golfer is.

In BG a scratch golfer is a player with a 0 handicap. Someone that shoots par or better at most courses. If golf had negative handicaps, the players that can earn a tour card would all carry a negative handicap, not a 0 handicap.

Basically, that all PGA Tour card holding pros are several strokes better than a scratch golfer, and that there are many scratch golfers that could never be competitive on the PGA tour. What we see on TV is misleading, because the courses are set up to challenge the best in the world. Your local course pro "scratch golfer" would not be shooting very close to par on those layouts.

I personally think the 1000 PR is more equitable to what it would take to get a Tour card than to scratch golfers. Scratch golfers are more like consistent above average players that make very few mistakes around the green.

Of course that's just my opinion of what a scratch golfer is and why the top pros are a step or three above a scratch golfer.

Ball golf calculates handicaps down to about -3.5. Tour players fall in that range up to maybe -5 if Tiger reported handicap rounds. If our rating system was originally based on par 70-72 courses, Barry and Ken's ratings would be about 1050. As it is right now, they shoot 5 shots better than a 1000 rated player on courses like Winthrop Gold, so the parallels with BG are good.

A 59 in the BG tour is their record round. In DG, a 59 would likely be our record for a course with an SSA near 72. Winthrop SSAs have bounced around 66-69 with a record round at 56 or so.

We consider scratch players starting at 975, not 1000, since the Gold design specs are for players who average 1000 rating. If we use all current members with ratings above 974, the average rating is about 995. In fact, Houck and I have our special Super Gold design specs we trot out for Final 9s at Worlds where the average rating is over 1025. (Not in writing, but in our heads from experience.)

Sorry, I am used to hearing the mantra of 1000 is par golf.

I am only a stroke or two per round below your number.
You may have the better number as my 950ish rounds do contain some mistakes around the green.

Do you know what the difference between a 950 golfer and a 975 golfer is ? Consistency around the basket.

This does not effect par calculations since consistency around the baskets is assumed. The effective driving distance is what really effects par. I think the 950 and 975 players are very close in that category.

A 975 could go either way. If he's under 40 (so far, they are all guys), more Gold like. Over 39 then more Blue like. Also depends on their ratings trend.

<font color="blue">Even though these are directed a Lowe, I'll go through them.
First a couple of question of my own. What is wrong with using the SSA along with non-SSA based par
definitions to answer some of your performance related questions ?
Doesn't BG use hole scoring averages to help determine the hardest and easiest holes on the course ?</font>

Here is that list of questions I mentioned a while back. Thanks in advanced for your answers.
1) Why would the director determine par? Shouldn�t it be the course pro/designer?
<font color="blue"> The Course pro/designer should be the one setting par/redesigning holes</font>
2) What standards do they all follow to get the par you are talking about?
<font color="blue">I think he has covered that in depth. It is based on hole length and foliage. I think the basic workings are the same as the PDGA calculator, though the specific formulas may be a little different.</font>
3) Is it able to be duplicated? Is it so simple that we can trust all directors to do a first rate job with it?
<font color="blue">If it's a spreadsheet where you type in numbers and get answers, I expect most of us could handle it.</font>
4) How do they determine the score an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole?
<font color="blue">The PDGA course designers group has stated what the effective driving distance is for each skill level. From there the calculations can be built that determine effective par of a given hole.</font>
5) How do they know what an expert disc golfer is; how do you define him/her?
<font color="blue">The PDGA gathered the information based on players with known skill levels. While I don't agree with them, they have placed the dividing line at a 1000 player rating.</font>
6) Errorless play? Is this something that can be uniformly understood and applied?
<font color="blue">Yes, Errorless play would be defined as drives that cover their full effective length per skill level and are not more than 5 degrees (about 26' at 300') off axis and 10% off desired length.</font>
7) What is a close range throw?
<font color="blue">That was covered as well. I think that a close range throw was 1/3 of the effective driving distance for a given skill level.</font>
8) On what data do you base such a designation?
<font color="blue">Who needs data for that determination.</font>
9) Is it uniform for all skill levels? If so, then why have different tee pads or pins on different greens?
<font color="blue">It is a uniform ratio for all skill levels.</font>

I am confident that I can answer each of these questions using SSA/WCP. Can you say the same of CR Par? If so please demonstrate so. <font color="blue">can you do it if the course has never been played by rated golfers ?</font>

I suspect that you could, but it would primarily be an exercise in taking SSA/WCP back through reverse engineering to the vast complexities you can find out on a course and in players and conditions. If not that, then something as untenable as number of throws by an undefined skill level player, throwing distances undefined by skill level, within don�t forget the hypothetical number of throws from an undefined by skill level distance to hole out.

10) How do you handicap holes using that definition of par for use in league play where there is a wide range of skill levels?
<font color="blue"></font>
11) How do you apply these pars to fairly penalize late players to PDGA rounds?
<font color="blue">You are penalized by listed course par. If you are a Pro playing in a tournament hosted on a white course, you know that you are going to be hit very hard if you are late. If you are a rec player on a blue course (without rec tees), you catch a break.</font>

Or to make all of this alot more simple:
1) What method do you use to determine an "expert disc golfer"?
<font color="blue">950/960 DG relates well to a scratch ball golfer - All PGA Tour pros (what I equate to our 1000 rated golfers) are well beyond scratch golfers.</font>



Good answers Gary. I agree with what you wrote.

As far as "What is a scratch, or expert, disc golfer?" I personally tend toward using 975. This is the approximate rating of the winners of Am Worlds, which seems to me like a reasonable standard for a scratch player. I was surprised and glad to read that Chuck calls 975 a scratch golfer.

However, in practice using 975 as an expert is not feasible. SSA is based on a 1000 PR golfer, so to use SSA data for course analysis it would need to be recalibrated to the 975 level. Since this is not feasible my conclusion is that we have to stay with 1000 as the standard for a scratch/expert player. That way you can just use the SSA data as is, without converting it.

For what it's worth (and that's very little) I also think that there should only be one standard for par. I don't think that there should be 5-6 separate par standards for different player levels. Golf has one only standard for men and I think that works just fine.

Golf has one only standard (for par) for men and I think that works just fine.




Ball golf has four standards and they are not for par. There's one standard for expert men and one for bogey men for course ratings and one standard for expert women and one for bogey women for course ratings. Our SSA is one standard to determine course ratings for all skill levels and both genders and it is not directly a par standard unless you want to use it for Gold level.

The one guideline BG has for par is "shots to the green plus two" for each of the several undefined skill levels that sets of tees are created for. The DG guideline for par is "the number of shots it takes to hole out" for players from one of four specific skill levels a set of tees is designed for.

Standards for course ratings and par are not the same thing.

Standards for BG course ratings are much more complicated and less accurate than DG since they're not based on actual scores at any time. BG's guideline for par is simple but the execution relative to specific skill level guidelines is undefined. DG's concept for par is straight forward and is directly connected to four defined skill levels.

I'd really like to see this get resolved one way or the other so a meaningful and useful par can start to be set by a single standard worldwide. Do we all agree on that, at least?

With some exception we more or less agree that a PDGA 1000 Rated Disc Golfer is a "Scratch" or "Expert Golfer", right? Some feel that it should be a little lower but even they understand that the foundation for it is still 1000 golf.

I'm wondering if we could agree on something like this:
That Projected Par could use some system like the Hole Forcaster or Close Range Par, while once PDGA Ratings Data is available Par be adjusted to within a certain flexible range of SSA for that layout. (Hopefully the need to do this would be extremely rare, since CR and the Hole Forcasters would continue to evolve and improve as more Ratings data is available.)

Par 2s: To eliminate them do something like has been suggested and call them PDGA Competitive Below Standard Par 3s or "See BS Par 3s" (CBS). :o:D:p (Com'on that's a little funny... and pretty accurate, at least for Blue and above players). Any course with a par set at or around 54 would have to be at least suspected of having a "CBS" hole or two on it, right?

Skill Level Pars: Don't do them. They were mainly thought up to get rid of Par 2s anyway. So if we've already dumped par 2s then one of the main reasons for skill level pars has already been eliminated, right? One standard and if you have a course with some CBS Par3s then you'd be advised against any handicap competitions. Now hold on! Chuck, you can still design holes and layouts for divisions other than upper BLUE an d GOLD, you just can't say that this is a BLUE par 68 and GOLD par 62, or a RED Par 80. Would that be so much to give up in order to get us to the next step in this process?

I believe that so long as CR Par and our Hole Forcaster remains up to date and informed concerning the data coming out via PDGA Player Ratings and specifically Scratch Score, we should have a decent "predictive tool set" for setting par.

For courses where hole by hole data can be calculated, and PDGA Ratings SSAs and WCPs be generated, then let us agree that we can use them to inform and upgrade the validity of the CR Par. (And better yet, use it to shore up holes that clearly score poorly for the intended skill level.

Courses that REALLY REALLY want to post some form of adjusted par for the intended skill level GREEN, RED or WHITE, should be allowed to, but with a similar "CBS" (Below Standard) designation. Not sure why they'd want that, but it, as now, would be up to them, the important thing for the PDGA and touring players/members out traveling to do would be to recognize that difference so folks don't think they've shot a 1000 Rated round on a course with a drastically inflated par.

Can we try a little compromise here? It seems pretty apparent that neither side of any of these issues is likely to see the light of the opposing side. Perhaps it is time for a little middle ground (very unpopular in the US right now I understand)?

Apologies for the length.

You guys crack me up. You support different divisions with their own ratings breaks and payout structures. Why is it so hard to grasp that courses should be designed to match these different skill sets with their own metrics for lengths and pars? If we had one giant division then let's have one global par standard. But we don't.

What's a home run? Easy definition. It's a hit that goes over the fence on the fly in baseball. How long is it? You can't tell unless you know whether it's softball, hardball or what age/gender level. Home run fences are set at different distances and in major league parks, sometimes the fence height has to be adjusted to get an equivalent length. The definition of a home run is the same. What they do technically, is matched to the skill level and equipment.

What's the "par" for a field goal? It's 3 points for football but the width of the goal posts changes based on skill level. It's also sometimes 3 points in basketball but the skill level determines how far away you have to shoot to earn it. The definitions of a field goal is pretty simple in football and basketball. But if player A and player B both have the same 3-pt shooting percentage, you better know if both are in the same league or one's in college and the other a pro.

Golf has one only standard (for par) for men and I think that works just fine.




Ball golf has four standards and they are not for par. There's one standard for expert men and one for bogey men for course ratings and one standard for expert women and one for bogey women for course ratings. Our SSA is one standard to determine course ratings for all skill levels and both genders and it is not directly a par standard unless you want to use it for Gold level.

The one guideline BG has for par is "shots to the green plus two" for each of the several undefined skill levels that sets of tees are created for. The DG guideline for par is "the number of shots it takes to hole out" for players from one of four specific skill levels a set of tees is designed for.

Standards for course ratings and par are not the same thing.

Standards for BG course ratings are much more complicated and less accurate than DG since they're not based on actual scores at any time. BG's guideline for par is simple but the execution relative to specific skill level guidelines is undefined. DG's concept for par is straight forward and is directly connected to four defined skill levels.



Chuck,

I'm sorry, but the first sentence of what you wrote seems to obfuscate the issue. Then you wrote of one golf guideline for par, as if there is not a set standard. In golf par is determined from a simple chart using effective length alone. There is only standard to determine par.

The other numbers are used to determine course ratings, and that is different from par.

In golf par is determined from a simple chart using effective length alone. There is only standard to determine par.




That is not correct. The chart shows what the par will be for a course from the expert tees based on the Expert Mens course rating standard. The BG definition for par is not a formula, it is the words "shots to the green plus two." It is only true for the expert player when the set of tees is designed for expert players, even if it has a course rating and slope attached to it from the Mens Course Rating formula. You and others are confusing the two elements.

Go back and look at the scorecards again. When the mens formula is used for those non-expert tees like the one with a course rating of 63, it's obvious that expert players would shoot way below par if they play those tees. Those pars are based on the consistent BG par definition of "shots to the green plus two" but for non-expert players playing those tees. It's the same thing as DG when I set the White level par for 54 and the SSA is 45. The SSA is the course rating, not the par setting.

Denny Ritner: I enjoyed reading and agree with your philosophies on course design. I still think that SSA is less subjective and more standardized than using several variables that do vary with CR Par methods. You are right though, if the courses are designed ideally, (with the concept of greens, on the green %'s, and tee and landing zone locations) there would be much less discrepancy between the different methods used for establishing par.

Chuck: Seems that course design continues to be something that intrigues the minds of those who follow the thread here. I see many people are already with the designers group. Do you think it would be publicly appropriate to give a description of what the group does and what one would expect in joining? Seems to me that there is a lot of new ideas experts are experimenting with in course design. Would members be a lot more exposed to this than here on this forum?


Neon:

I'd really like to see this get resolved one way or the other so a meaningful and useful par can start to be set by a single standard worldwide. Do we all agree on that, at least?

Yes. The solution should be simple, but structurally solid.


Skill Level Pars: Don't do them. They were mainly thought up to get rid of Par 2s anyway. So if we've already dumped par 2s then one of the main reasons for skill level pars has already been eliminated, right? One standard and if you have a course with some CBS Par3s then you'd be advised against any handicap competitions. Now hold on! Chuck, you can still design holes and layouts for divisions other than upper BLUE an d GOLD, you just can't say that this is a BLUE par 68 and GOLD par 62, or a RED Par 80. Would that be so much to give up in order to get us to the next step in this process?




What I'm hearing that you are saying is that we should design courses with tee settings with 4 different skill levels, but that on each tee setting, hole par should only be determined for that specific skill level.

This might be reasonable, but only if SSA is posted for all of the four different skill levels (for each tee setting).

Let's face it, on nice courses, sometimes several different tee locations are fun to play for pros and ams alike. Even in "A" tier events, you will have ams playing from pro tees and vice versa. A great many courses haven't even made the distinction yet. A lot of courses have tees that play from completely different angles and though offering a much different challenge, the hole scoring averages are quite similar.

It would be very informative if you post the scoring averages for every skill level for each set of tees, say on a bullitin, or on the hole 1 tee sign. This would give each division an idea of what they should from each set of tees. This would also show how similar or different the course par is from the SSA.

Now were saying that only the hole par for the specific tee skill would be posted. If you have a blue tee, and the par is 3, we could post "PAR 3" in blue print. We would not include RED PAR 4, WHITE PAR 3, GOLD PAR 2. That seems reasonable, but here's an idea..... Include an absolute hole difficulty rating, such as 2.4. This number would be the (gold or 1000 rated) hole scratch scoring average. If you know this information, you can take your player rating and add .28 for every 50 points of difference between your rating and 1000. This gives you a precise idea of what YOUR PAR is for the hole.

In short, my ideal course would have all the tee settings listed (and their associated skill level) on the bullitin board or first tee with scoring averages for 4 different defined skill levels listed for each of these tee settings. I would also include course lengths and possibly even a challenge factor to give players an idea of how much foliage and OB on the course effect the difficulty as well. Now, on the tee sign for each hole, all that would be needed would be the hole length, schematic or picture of different tees and pins, the tee skill level, and the tee's par, which would be based on the skill level. Use of skill level color in the print would be of benefit. Of additional benefit would be including the true hole difficulty (can't think of a better wording that wouldn't promote confusion) or Gold Hole Scoring Average, in tenths, such as 2.7. Even if the course is designed for a gold player with a listed par of 3, that player would enjoy the benefit of knowing how bad a 4 is on this hole and how much a 2 is not out of the question.

Having a universal hole difficutly number would solve the problems of some people wanting several pars and some wanting only one par standard. You could have them both.


My most important statement is that SSA's should be gathered and posted, not just course par, even if they are the same.

My most important question is.... What will determine the skill level of a given set of tees? Who is to say that a Blue par 52 course wouldn't be a better RED par 62 course? On any given course, sometimes one certain tee plays better for everyone. Sometimes the longer tees play better for ams and the shorter ones better for pros. I know that these are design issues. I'd like to know more these calculations and how the general public is being made to understand them. This needs more critical thought.

Also a big difference between DG and BG is course par. 70-72 is much different from 48-72. I think it would be a great idea to include a "difficulty tier" with the skill level of a given set of tees. 48-52 could be tier 1, 52-56 tier 2, or whatever works best. Color and tier would give a really good idea about how a course plays without getting into any numbers. Right now, "blue course" tells you nothing about it's par. The SSA easily does this, but approach with a categorizing method would give players a better grasp.

Another thing Neon said about blue and gold courses being standard while red and white are substandard.... I think this defeats the point of having different skill level tees to begin with. It's ok to think about disc golf as having one true par that is 1000 rated golf. It wouldn't be good to have 2 real pars and 2 fake pars. As mentioned previously, a blue course and a white course could be identicle, with the difference being only the designer's preference. Calling one standard and the other substandard would be wrong. On the other hand, a white course could have a par of 70, while the blue course has a par of 50. Which of these courses is better?

I do agree, by the way, that 1000 rated golf is a good standard. If you look at par in ball golf, only 0.5% or less of golfers can achieve this standard. If we applied the same numbers to disc golf, we'd get more than 1000 as the par standard, not less. Seing that only 0.5% achieve true par is a good reason to promote and define other par levels. For ball golf, these levels are substantially closer together than for disc golf, but that too, I think is good.

I'd really like to see this get resolved one way or the other so a meaningful and useful par can start to be set by a single standard worldwide. Do we all agree on that, at least?
<font color="blue">I would agree that there needs to be a consistent meaningful standard worldwide</font>

With some exception we more or less agree that a PDGA 1000 Rated Disc Golfer is a "Scratch" or "Expert Golfer", right? Some feel that it should be a little lower but even they understand that the foundation for it is still 1000 golf.
<font color="blue">I'll go along with 1000 as a base</font>

I'm wondering if we could agree on something like this:
That Projected Par could use some system like the Hole Forcaster or Close Range Par, <font color="blue">I agree that the Hole Forcaster or Close Range Par could be used to establish usable Pars.</font> while once PDGA Ratings Data is available Par be adjusted <font color="blue">I don't think Par for a hole should ever be adjusted, if the scoring averages for the hole are not in line with the desired par, the hole should be redesigned.</font> to within a certain flexible range of SSA for that layout. (Hopefully the need to do this would be extremely rare, since CR and the Hole Forcasters would continue to evolve and improve as more Ratings data is available.)

Par 2s: To eliminate them <font color="blue">I agree</font> do something like has been suggested and call them PDGA Competitive Below Standard Par 3s or "See BS Par 3s" (CBS). <font color="blue">I don't agree with ignoring them, then you are left with Pars that have no basis in reality and are useless in measuring a courses difficulty.</font> (Com'on that's a little funny... and pretty accurate, at least for Blue and above players). Any course with a par set at or around 54 would have to be at least suspected of having a "CBS" hole or two on it, right?
<font color="blue">Why not have courses rated by the longest tees on the course. If they are gold, a gold course, if they are Blue, a Blue course, if they are white or red, then white or red. Just as someone stated recently a red course is just a course that did not have room to put in the blue and white tees/pins.</font>

Skill Level Pars: Don't do them. They were mainly thought up to get rid of Par 2s anyway.<font color="blue">and are still needed to serve that purpose if par is to retain any relative meaning.</font> So if we've already dumped par 2s then one of the main reasons for skill level pars has already been eliminated, right? <font color="blue">That's where we are now. Too many courses with SSAs below 54, but gold par is still referred to as 54</font>One standard and if you have a course with some CBS Par3s then you'd be advised against any handicap competitions. Now hold on! Chuck, you can still design holes and layouts for divisions other than upper BLUE an d GOLD, you just can't say that this is a BLUE par 68 and GOLD par 62, or a RED Par 80. Would that be so much to give up in order to get us to the next step in this process?
<font color="blue">Yes, that would be a lot to give up. Not only is the color designation a tool to avoid par 2s, it is also a tool to define the level of player likely to find the course challenging. Is it a red par 60, or a white par 55 ?</font>

I believe that so long as CR Par and our Hole Forcaster remains up to date and informed concerning the data coming out via PDGA Player Ratings and specifically Scratch Score, we should have a decent "predictive tool set" for setting par.
<font color="blue">I agree, but don't agree with retro active changes to par except where the course can not be tweaked</font>

For courses where hole by hole data can be calculated, and PDGA Ratings SSAs and WCPs be generated, then let us agree that we can use them to inform and upgrade the validity of the CR Par. (And better yet, use it to shore up holes that clearly score poorly for the intended skill level.<font color="blue">The second part... Fix the holes that do not perform up to projected levels.</font>

Courses that REALLY REALLY want to post some form of adjusted par for the intended skill level GREEN, RED or WHITE, should be allowed to, but with a similar "CBS" (Below Standard) designation<font color="blue">Having a color rating below Blue is an automatic statement of CBS. I think that there should be a standard that there is only one par listed for each tee/pin combination and that it be the one appropriate for the skill level the tee is deisgned for</font>. Not sure why they'd want that, <font color="blue">me either</font> but it, as now, would be up to them, the important thing for the PDGA and touring players/members out traveling to do would be to recognize that difference so folks don't think they've shot a 1000 Rated round on a course with a drastically inflated par.<font color="blue">There should never be a drastically inflated par, just appropriate pars for the design of the holes on the course.</font>

Can we try a little compromise here? It seems pretty apparent that neither side of any of these issues is likely to see the light of the opposing side. Perhaps it is time for a little middle ground (very unpopular in the US right now I understand)?
<font color="blue">I don't see why you can't see that there are a lot of courses that don't now and will never have an SSA anywhere near 54 and we need a simple and intuitive way to label those courses that does not imply that they listed with competitive pars. A simple statement can be posted on the course bulletin board explaining the course rating and rough par to player rating conversion. Along with a disclaimer that players scoring well below par can get a more accurate player rating estimate by playing a higher rated course. </font>

Apologies for the length.<font color="blue">Me too</font>

In golf par is determined from a simple chart using effective length alone. There is only standard to determine par.




That is not correct. The chart shows what the par will be for a course from the expert tees based on the Expert Mens course rating standard. The BG definition for par is not a formula, it is the words "shots to the green plus two."




By USGA definition par is based on the play of a scratch (or expert ) player. As I read it this is the only standard used. They use one table based on the lengths that a scratch player hits the ball. Those numbers can be easily transformed into a formula.

The following is directly from the USGA 2006-07 Handicap System Manual (http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/handicap_system_manual.html)

Section 16: Par Computation

Yardages for guidance in computing par are given below. The effective playing length of a hole for the scratch golfer determines par. (See Section 13-3b.) These yardages may not be applied arbitrarily; the configuration of the ground and the severity of the obstacles should be taken into consideration.

Authorized golf associations are empowered to adjudicate questions of hole par. (See Decision 16/1.)

<table border="1"><tr><td>Par</td><td>Men
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>up to 250
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>251 to 470
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>471 to 690
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>691 and over
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

"A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots at sea level."

The one guideline BG has for par is "shots to the green plus two" for each of the several undefined skill levels that sets of tees are created for.



Chuck,

I'll admit that the USGA does use the word "guideline" in their handbook on par. I didn't notice that before. But it is also used with the chart with hole lengths, not just the words you quoted.

There are only a handful of people posting here that passionately care about this. Others may read this thread out of some level of curiosity. Only a few of our 90 course design members are really into this so don't expect to see a lot of these concepts quickly moving into common use. As the PDGA Course Evaluation process takes hold, I think it will gradually boost interest in these things as courses seek to improve, but it will take time. We're thinking about developing some design workshops to be offered at Highbridge and the NDGC but I'm skeptical whether the time and effort will be worth it in terms of attendance.

In golf par is determined from a simple chart using effective length alone. There is only standard to determine par.




That is not correct. The chart shows what the par will be for a course from the expert tees based on the Expert Mens course rating standard. The BG definition for par is not a formula, it is the words "shots to the green plus two." It is only true for the expert player when the set of tees is designed for expert players, even if it has a course rating and slope attached to it from the Mens Course Rating formula. You and others are confusing the two elements.

Go back and look at the scorecards again. When the mens formula is used for those non-expert tees like the one with a course rating of 63, it's obvious that expert players would shoot way below par if they play those tees. Those pars are based on the consistent BG par definition of "shots to the green plus two" but for non-expert players playing those tees. It's the same thing as DG when I set the White level par for 54 and the SSA is 45. The SSA is the course rating, not the par setting.



I looked closely at the score cards, and I have couple of comments.
1) Maybe they stretched the guidelines for par.
2) Maybe the lengths used for par for the shorter tees were based on the Women's par length chart not the Men's chart.
3) These may be isolated cases outside of the norm. I would expect that on the overwhelming majority of holes on regular courses the pars fall within the lengths on the USGA chart.
4) Even with the examples given there were only a couple of holes that didn't fit the USGA par guidelines in the Men's chart.

Lowe, this is a light bulb issue when you'll all of a sudden go "Aha!" BG par definition and the Mens course rating formula guidelines are only linked for the tees that experts play where the par is close to the CR formula calculation. It's the identical concept of SSA being used to help validate the Gold Par for a Gold course. SSA only works as a reference for Gold tees but a derivative reference is needed for our other tee sets.

For any other set of ball golf tees, the par is what players of that skill level will take to reach the green plus two. Now it may seem like the mens formula is setting par for those other tee sets but that's an illusion. The par is the same from the other tees on a hole because a different player skill level is expected to play them, not the expert men. The expert mens course rating will be different for each tee set just like the SSA is different for each tee set in DG.

We had to go thru all this 8 years ago when we set up the ratings system after picking apart, analyzing and studying the ball golf course ratings, par and handicap system. We've come a long way and learned a lot. Everyone won't be up to speed on this right away. It's simple in some ways but there's also more to it than meets the eye.

4) Even with the examples given there were only a couple of holes that didn't fit the USGA par guidelines in the Men's chart.



But 100% of them work with Chuck's explanation. :cool:

Also, if you look at the PDGA Par chart I provided, there's lots of overlap. It would be normal for the pars of only 3 to 5 holes be different when moving from White par to Red or Blue.

Lowe, this is a light bulb issue when you'll all of a sudden go "Aha!" BG par definition and the Mens course rating formula guidelines are only linked for the tees that experts play where the par is close to the CR formula calculation. It's the identical concept of SSA being used to help validate the Gold Par for a Gold course. SSA only works as a reference for Gold tees but a derivative reference is needed for our other tee sets.

For any other set of ball golf tees, the par is what players of that skill level will take to reach the green plus two. Now it may seem like the mens formula is setting par for those other tee sets but that's an illusion. The par is the same from the other tees on a hole because a different player skill level is expected to play them, not the expert men. The expert mens course rating will be different for each tee set just like the SSA is different for each tee set in DG.

We had to go thru all this 8 years ago when we set up the ratings system after picking apart, analyzing and studying the ball golf course ratings, par and handicap system. We've come a long way and learned a lot. Everyone won't be up to speed on this right away. It's simple in some ways but there's also more to it than meets the eye.



This touches on what I was trying to explain to someone earlier in this thread.

I was saying something on the lines of : Picture your hole with 4 sets of tees on it, each set for different levels of players. All the tees were strategically placed to fit each level based off of the expert/gold tees. Now remove the expert/gold tees and you have what we would consider a Blue course. Remove the expert/gold and Blue tees and it would be a white course.

To apply this and make it have meaning on existing courses we just need to determine the best skill level fit, figure the SSA, hole scoring average and then adjust it to fit the Scoring average of a 950player for blue....900 for White....850 Red and so on.


(i hope I made even a little bit of sense, my brain seems fried tonite:) )

You guys crack me up. You support different divisions with their own ratings breaks and payout structures. Why is it so hard to grasp that courses should be designed to match these different skill sets with their own metrics for lengths and pars? If we had one giant division then let's have one global par standard. But we don't.



So I should take this as a "No". You are not interested in compromise as far as moving this process forward. Chuck, in all seriousness isn't the SSA/WCP the only "Par" standard that really matters? Isn't the one all the others are based on? Shouldn't the establishment of it, first, take the vast amount of our effort and priority?

Lowe and Scott didn't even acknowledge the proposals, so I will take that as their "No" answer as well. I'm left to assume that we'd rather bicker than actually create something that we can mutually support, even though it isn't exactly what any single one of us 100% wants.

Oh well, I get faked out every now and again on this board, thinking that something of use can actually arise out of these jabber jaw sessions. My Bad.

I'd prefer to move this discussion to the DGLC since it is not directly related to the PDGA Course Evaluation Program. Are all you guys members? I know Chuck is, how about Lowe, Scott and Gary? Go to Yahoo and search under groups "Disc Golf Links Club", then at least these discussions will be placed infront of folks that might care a little more about it than the average player.

You guys crack me up. You support different divisions with their own ratings breaks and payout structures. Why is it so hard to grasp that courses should be designed to match these different skill sets with their own metrics for lengths and pars? If we had one giant division then let's have one global par standard. But we don't.



So I should take this as a "No". You are not interested in compromise as far as moving this process forward. Chuck, in all seriousness isn't the SSA/WCP the only "Par" standard that really matters? Isn't it the one all the others are based on? Shouldn't the establishment of it, first, take the vast amount of our effort and priority?

Lowe and Scott didn't even acknowledge the proposals, so I will take that as their "No" answer as well. I'm left to assume that we'd rather bicker than actually create something that we can mutually support and promote, even though it isn't exactly what any single one of us 100% wants. Wouldn't that be better than the big fat nuttin' we have now?

Oh well, I get faked out every now and again on this board, thinking that something of use can actually arise out of these jabber jaw sessions. My Bad.

I'd prefer to move this discussion to the DGLC since it is not directly related to the PDGA Course Evaluation Program. Are all you guys members? I know Chuck is, how about Lowe, Scott and Gary? Go to Yahoo and search under groups "Disc Golf Links Club", then at least these discussions will be placed infront of folks that might care a little more about it than the average player.