Its become apparent to me that I dont really understand these concepts or why they are important to course/hole design and course evaluations.

What is a Par 2? I kind of understand this if I think about Ken Climo throwing on a flat, 125' hole with not trees. I guess this is not good for a Blue course?

Why is it important to keep scoring spreads for your course? On the FAQ in the Course Eval. Yahoo! group...the question of "When do you know a hole favors big arms?" is asked. Chuck points to his scoring spreadsheet and gives some values that might indicate a hole being the wrong length (still not sure if a hole is 1 shot...1 1/2 shots...2 shots...etc). If I go by that, then almost every hole at my home course (the first course I am evaluating) are the wrong length for Blue level players. Is this common?

How do I start keeping scoring spreads to better evaluate and understand this part of course design? I am an amataur Excel user and could add a worksheet to my handicap document..but, Im not sure how to construct it. Is it simple averages of scores?

Any discussion on the subject would be helpful. I will post this on the Yahoo! discussion and PDGA Course Evaluation thread. Though, I have an easier time reading posts on this board.

Let's look at a simple example with 10 Blue level players with ratings between 925-975. Let's say a hole is relatively open and about 365 feet. All of these players shoot a 3 on the hole. It's almost as if the hole could be skipped in competition because everyone gets the same score. It's just a little too long and/or challenging to park it AND make the putt for maybe 3 of them to consistently get a 2. However, shorten the hole to around 285 and 3 out of 10 will regularly get 2s. This rewards the players who happen to be shooting well that day.

Our course designer group has more detailed tools that determine where the appropriate length ranges are for different skill levels to design holes. However, the basic chart is available for evaluators in the Yahoo FILES and will eventually be available to everyone on the PDGA site.

A par 2, by some people's definition, occurs when 6 or more of these 10 Blue level players consistently 2s a hole. Its length would have to be under 200 for this to happen. Just for comparison, relatively open holes under 275 would be par 2s for Gold level.

Chuck as you know I have to disagreee with your par 2 concept and feel it should not be considered for a par in Disc golf course design and layout.
Let see,
If you call a hole a par 2, how many out of 100, 925-975 rated players make a hole in one on it ( or make it in one shot)?
I know the answer Zero?
So no one birdies the hole, it has to be a terribly designed hole if NON ONE Birdies it.

Let me guess you also want par 6's?

Somebody make it stop before we throw around more yellow ropes, windmills and through clowns noses, where we dont get our discs back on the last hole if we miss the clowns nose :D

Wheres the course design police when you need them?

Chuck after reading your post on par 2's on the other thread I see you are not in favor of designing them only in calling them par 2's on courses that already have " easy par 3's)

Hopefully you will not use par 2 on a scorecard or tee sign for any future or existing courses, as it will only make our Sport look like a joke.
I would much rather see a hole considered a really easy par 3 than EVER call anything par 2.
The same goes for a really hard par 5 over an easy par 6.

Why is it that we just cant foillow in the footsteps of golf?
Havent they proven themselves and their successes already?
Why reinvent the wheel.
Is it the non conformist, anti-establishment, hippies on the beach still coming out in us?

I met a guy today at the new ( par 70) course we are installing( dont worry there is a recreational 9 holer going in about 1 mile away simutaneously), who has worked with Gary Player and Hale irwin, designing ball golf courses in and around the area for the last 20 years. He mentioned a few other familiar regional courses he was incolved in as wel, but I cant remember them right now.
He was really interested in what i was doing with disc golf design in the park and saw his first ever disc golf drive today.
Soon I will be walking the course with him and he is offering to help Gateway develop some standards for disc golf course design based on what he has learned from Gary and Hale. Appearantly Gary Player is all for making risk and reward president over distance and asked how much this was taken into considration in desgning disc golf courses.
When I explained to him that the PDGA had considered all holes par 3's for almost 30 years he asked who decided this and why.

Does anyone know the answer?

He had only heard of disc golf and had never actually seen it played, yet he guessed and speculated correctly on several of our key problems that the sport is having or could be devloping.
He said that by not having par 3', 4's and 5's it would'nt offer the variety needed to use all of your discs and skills. He guessed that having all par 3's would only have ball golfers considered disc golf a game and not really a sport.
This speculative information coming from a guy who has made his living designing ball golf courses seemed almost too ironic as it has been my philosphy all along for disc golf since I first designed a par 72 object course around my beighborhood on 1976 using whammos and fast backs.

I realize the need for easy beginner courses and hope others will still install them, but if the park lends itself to par 4/ and 5's why not utilize the space? and natural lay of the land? <font color="pink"> </font>

When I explained to him that the PDGA had considered all holes par 3's for almost 30 years he asked who decided this and why.

Does anyone know the answer?



Ed Headrick promoted the idea that every hole is a par 3. Here's an excerpt from an email by Carlton Howard to the DG Course Designers Group:
"One thing that is often overlooked in discussing par and disc golf is the fact that organized disc golf (as "created" by Ed Headrick) was modeled after Par Three golf courses...not regular (par 70 - 72) golf courses. Ed developed the pole hole with marketing and franchising in mind and his vision was one that required as little land as possible, a par three golf course. So all of his designs were centered on the pitch and putt idea. Our sport today actually began by copying par 54 golf courses, not the regular "full length" golf courses. Food for thought. So, I've never been embarrassed to explain that all holes are Par 3. That's the model our sport has followed."


He said that by not having par 3', 4's and 5's it would'nt offer the variety needed to use all of your discs and skills. He guessed that having all par 3's would only have ball golfers considered disc golf a game and not really a sport.



Personally, I also agree with Dave that following the "all par 3" model is a detriment to disc golf. I suspect that Ed promoted it to get the maximum number of recreational players playing. I also suspect that the reason to get the most people playing was to sell more frisbees and targets.

Imagine where professional golf would be right now if every hole was a par 3?

Wherever it is possible I think that par 68 would be a good standard to use.

Of course, first you have to answer the question, "how do you determine par?", but the PDGA does not appear inclined to do that. If they don't then we will continue to have such a wide variety of methods used that the word "par" carries so many meanings that it is almost useless.

It's better to recognize par 2s (where they exist) as weaker holes that should be improved, than it is to hide them as easy par 3s. If you don't know the difference between good par 3s and weak par 3s, there's less incentive to improve those disguised par 2s.

If you have a course with one or two holes that average less than 2.5 for the intended skill level, I wouldn't advocate labeling those holes par 2. Just try to fix them and boost the average. On the Pro Worlds courses this year, there were a few borderline par 2 holes that were still labeled par 3 for the event. On the other hand, if there are several holes with scoring averages below 2.5 on a course for the Gold or Blue skill level, it's no worse labeling them as par 2s than it is to let them remain bogus par 3s and have players shoot double digits below par. From an outsider's perspective, I'd say seeing par 2s or seeing players winning events by shooting 45 below par are equally less desireable.

So, work to remove low scoring par 2s where possible. But don't sweep the problem under the carpet by disguising them as par 3s. Even better, recognize that a course is perhaps more suited for a lower skill level and relabel the pars from say Blue level to White or Red level where there are no par 2s.

As far as par 6s, there are 50 or so in ball golf and the standards for them are listed in the USGA official handicap book. Holes over 700 yards are par 6s in ball golf. In honor of the new year 2006, Highbridge will have a legit Gold level par 6 this coming year.

Let's look at a simple example with 10 Blue level players with ratings between 925-975. Let's say a hole is relatively open and about 365 feet. All of these players shoot a 3 on the hole. It's almost as if the hole could be skipped in competition because everyone gets the same score. It's just a little too long and/or challenging to park it AND make the putt for maybe 3 of them to consistently get a 2. However, shorten the hole to around 285 and 3 out of 10 will regularly get 2s. This rewards the players who happen to be shooting well that day.



While the par 2 debate has been interesting, getting back to Jerry's original question, scoring spreads and hole skill levels is essentially designing disc golf holes which provide adequate score separation between players. As Chuck showed in his example, his hypothetical hole would produce the same score, a three, for a great majority of blue level players. It might be a great par three for Gold players because there would be a good mix of twos and threes, and it might provide a nice score swing for recreational players because there would be threes, fours and an occassional deuce. But if nearly all Blue level players take routine threes without even 'working' for it, what's the point?

Scoring spreads and hole skill levels become obvious when you look at scoring averages for tournaments. When building the Warwick course, several of us analyzed scoring averages for every tournament held there. With two permanent tees and two permanent basket positions, it was important to design holes with appropriate scoring spreads. Several holes that were easy par fours were either lengthened to make tough par fours or shortened to make for par threes. We even shortened the 1000-foot Blue-Blue 18th hole to 'only' 900 feet because virtually no one was scoring a birdie four on it.

We did this same analysis for many of the courses used in Pro Worlds 2005 by looking at data from informal monthly tournaments held in the two years prior to the tournament, and tweaking as necessary.

By utilizing average driving distance data and how scoring is affected by foliage density, Chuck can layout an entire course for a skill range, and provide appropriate scoring spread. This hole forecasting certainly saves considerable time over the previously described method of laying out a course, playing tournaments, analyzing the data, and then adjusting the course.

What would be average driving distances for different levels? We have a hole at our course that practicly mirrors Chucks hypothetical hole, when thinking back...the scoring average would probably be that 2.8--3.2 Chuck talked about. I am going to start keeping scoring averages from our local minis to help me with this concept.

Thats a good explination Jeff. I never considered that our hole could be a better Gold level hole or White level hole at the same time, but it makes more sense now. One of our goals in the next couple of years is to put alternate tee locations in. This course evaluation program is helping me understand the things that could help me make our course better. Out here, we dont have much foliage or elevation to work with...and, even if you totally rebuilt the course I would venture a guess that the scoring spreads would change very little, if at all. About all we can do is lengthen holes and angle them to take advantage of as much as possible.

Maybe if we required people to shoot opposite hand on some of the open holes....that could spread the scoring better :eek:

Jerry, you're correct that your type of of open terrain is where length on holes is crucial if you're at least trying to match the design challenge for a skill level and get decent scoring spreads. Designers have much more leeway on wooded holes in terms of hole lengths.

Don't overlook the possibility of creating artificial challenges by marking areas that are OB. Even more ambitious has been the suggestion to create defined areas with lots of big rocks scattered around so players have poor footing if they land in this "rock trap" zone.

I realize the desire to increase scoring averages on existing holes and widen the spread, but is artificial O.B's in the middle of and open field really the answer?

What about artificial trees or upright poles? are they any better or is it still along the same line as the yellow ropes?


There is a 10 foot tall X 10 feet wide powder coated green metal cactus with 4 upright prongs in the same park as our new disc golf course in Centralia, Illinois.
I was tempted to incorparate it into one of the holes, but decided agianst it for several reasons.
.
How would players feel about this type of artificial obstacles?
This particular Cactus looks awesome but I bet it cost qite a bit to build( I heard it was made by a local welder) It is made with 8" diameter tubing and was well put together. Maybe there are simliar products in production that are less expensive.

I know Ed tried something similar in 1988 at the worlds in Cincinnati to keep players from Hyzering on a certain Hole.


Seeing as though its hard to get trees less than 3" caliper to survive on an existing disc golf hole, would artificial tress be any better than Yellow Rope?

Just checking in. :cool:

Yo RT What Up!

It's better to recognize par 2s (where they exist) as weaker holes that should be improved, than it is to hide them as easy par 3s. If you don't know the difference between good par 3s and weak par 3s, there's less incentive to improve those disguised par 2s.



Precisely.

Par 2s are a crucial concept to understand if you ever hope to have appropriate challenges, per skill level, at your course.

And there are one or two things that Disc Golf is doing better at than Ball Golf. The PDGA Ratings System is definitely one of them.

As pertains to the PDGA Course Evaluation Program, I don't necessarily want Evaluators to be experts at these concepts, just proficient enough to know when a hole is inappropriate for one of the 4 major skill levels (Gold, Blue, White, Red), and this only for about 3 or 4 out of 60 course elements to be evaluated.

It's better to recognize par 2s (where they exist) as weaker holes that should be improved, than it is to hide them as easy par 3s. If you don't know the difference between good par 3s and weak par 3s, there's less incentive to improve those disguised par 2s.



Precisely.

Par 2s are a crucial concept to understand if you ever hope to have appropriate challenges, per skill level, at your course.





I agree with Nick.

You just have to keep in mind, though, that there are 3 methods to determining par and the differences between each method show up a lot in the issue of par 2. The 3 methods are 1) Score Average (SA) Par, 2. Ball Golf (BG) Par, and 3)Close Range (CR) Par. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to explain much about each method, but here's how each one calculates par 2s for a Gold level player:

1) SA Par: a hole is a par 2 if the scoring average is 2.499 or lower.
2) BG Par: there are no par 2s since by definition a player is allowed 2 close range shots to hole out. BG Par defines "close range" as putting distance, or 10 m.
3) CR Par: for a Gold level player a par 2 is a hole with an effective length of 120 ft. or less. (Note that this is "effective playing length" that takes elevation changes and forced layups into account.) This method also allows a player 2 "close range" shots to hole out, but "close range" is equivalent to being "on the green" in ball golf. For a Gold level player "close range" equals 1/3 of the average driving distance, which is 120 ft. (This also equals 0.33 of a throw which is why this number was chosen because of the 1.67 "Around the Green" (ATG) constant in disc golf.)

My personal preference is the Close Range Par method.

Of course, disc golf does not have any universal standards for par anyway, so that issue really needs to be resolved first. One might even ask, "What is Par?"

The SA par method is superior for DG partly because par 2s will be uncovered, and the appropriate par levels for all other skill levels can be determined from one set of event scores (and even estimated in advance with special design tools). The BG and CR methods continue to disguise holes as par 3s that are weak with too many 2s being scored on them. With the SA method these holes are exposed so they can be changed and improved. Again, you can't or won't make the effort to improve holes if it doesn't appear there's a problem.

The other issue with BG and CR methods is that separate guidelines for driving and putting must somehow be determined for four different skill levels. The nature of "two close shots" is different for Gold versus Red level. With the Scoring Average method, it doesn't make any difference whether the shots are drives, approaches or putts. So the process automatically accounts for different skill levels for all shots combined.

I like the posed question on "what is par? !!
Shouldnt par allow for 2 putts within say 60 feet not 120?
I've seen some pretty good putters but few that make 120 footers, that would be considered a lay up.

Chuck,
if there is a hole you consider a par 2 how many 1's willl that hole yield in a filed of 72, 970 and higher rated players?

If a top pro field only has one out of 72 players birdie the hole, isnt the par off?
Even the hardest holes on the PGA tour yield over 10% birdies, so by that standard 7 players would need to make a hole in one for it to be a par 2.

I agree exposing weak par 3's on competition style courses is important to adding credibility to the Sport and our pdga tour, but calling any holes par 2 on signs and scorecards is not good for the game. This makes it look hokey/silly or like miniature golf, IMO!

FYI- It's not true that ball golf holes have at least 10% birdies because I've occasionally checked the stats on some of their major events. They've had several tweener holes with 5% or fewer birdies.

If several disc golf holes have scoring averages below 2.5 for Blue or Gold, I would try to persuade the TD/designer to change the basis for par to a lower skill level for that course OR use the less desireable option of listing them as par 2s. To call a course Gold or Blue level and have weak par 3s (that are really 2s) is just as much of a problem as admitting they are par 2s. Better to set pars based on White or Red skill level to eliminate the par 2s if they can't be fixed.

Chuck,
my 10% was merely a guess, do have somehere, like a website that you are getting your PGA "FACTS" from.

I'm all for calling each hole the correct par ( 3,4 or 5) and each course the correct par( 54- 72, but,
Either way you slice it up, par 2's on signs and scorecards will make disc golf look silly.

What do you mean putt putt DG sounds great. We could also have a waterpark, snowcones, and funnel cakes. Ok so you want holes that play at a 2.5 stroke average to be considered a par 2 right? Well I have played BG courses where I Birdie some par 3's about half the time and I know I am not a Gold type BG player so should these be considered par 2's?

Also if the hole averages 2.5 and in is considered a par two then that means that our top pros average worse than par on a hole and I don't know of too many BG holes like this. I say keep them as easy Par threes and not hard par 2's.

Either way you slice it up, par 2's on signs and scorecards will make disc golf look silly.



No sillier than our World Champs winning with around a -80 score (see Rochester Worlds video).

I vote for keeping them as par 3's as well, use pro teeboxes instead of developing par 2's. Calling each hole a par 3 should be changed, a friend of mine manages a Golfsmith store and plays both BG and DG and he doesnt understand why there arent par 4's and 5's. In reality the total score is what counts anyhow so I guess it doesnt really matter.

Either way you slice it up, par 2's on signs and scorecards will make disc golf look silly.



No sillier than our World Champs winning with around a -80 score (see Rochester Worlds video).



Chuck, I couldn't have provided a better response.

The existence of par 2's in disc golf won't make our sport look silly. Ignoring the fact that par 2's already exist does, however. Like it or not, they're out there.

I definitely like the direction that disc golf is headed, particularly in relation to course design. It is so nice to see the idea that "every hole is a par 3" is slowly eroding away. Designers like McDaniel, McCormack, Duvall, Houck (just to name a few) are influencing others to layout par 4's and par 5's...something our sport desperately needed. Recognition of the fact that every hole is not a par 3 does more for our sport than just about anything else. To all those folks who believe in par 4's and par 5's (i.e. better course design), I say "thank you" again and again.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I try to explain disc golf to members of the ball golf community, one of the first questions I receive is "What is your handicap in disc golf?"

Interesting question. Unfortunately, it cannot be answered until the time comes that we, the disc golf community, establish what the actual par is for all disc golf courses. Many of the courses will be par 54. Of course, many others will not...and several of those courses will have par 2's. Par should always be set for the professional player. That is the only way to develop a universal handicapping system for the general public. If ball golf posted recreational par like some dg courses, we would see more par 7's and 8's. If anyone knows of a ball golf course like this, let me know...I would like to play a course with par around 108.

The player rating system is a nice substitute for for the time being. Of course, it only works for active and competing members of the PDGA. Not Joe-Blo Public. With the course evaluation program and course design improving as a whole, the wheels are definitely spinning in the right direction. We'll get there eventually.

Jerry Gotcher
PDGA 7956

p.s. Miniature golf has multiple pars, including par 2 holes. Now, I know I'm talking about miniature golf, but guess what? You can watch the National or World "Putt Putt" championships on ESPN...and the winner is walking away with a cash prize that dwarf's any prize awarded in our sport. I watched a tournament last summer where the winner walked away with $50,000.00! Tell a professional Putt Putt competitor that par 2's look silly on signs and scorecards. They'll laugh...all the way to the bank. :D

There is some excellent discussion going on here, I just want to be clear again how Par 2s affect the PDGA Course Evaluation Program; they are only important in considering the appropriateness of a hole for a specific skill level (Gold, Blue, White, Red). There is no need to put a Par 2 on the tee sign, only to understand that this hole is not likely an appropriate challenge and may deserve lower scores on 3 or 4 of the Design Element Evaluation Questions.

WCP, SSA and Chuck's version of PAR are tools, and useful ones at that, in this process. Understanding of them is helpful to a PDGA Course Evaluator. Evaluators need not have the understanding or knowledge of a course designer, only of very specific concepts.

I agree that a single par standard would be useful for disc golf, but the PDGA Course Evaluation Program is not going to decide which is the best method; though it reserves the right to utilize the best parts of any methods, which currently are World Class Par concepts.

Chuck or Nick,

Could either of you or both address these questions?

Shouldnt par allow for 2 putts within say 60 feet not 120?

I've seen some pretty good putters but few that make 120 footers, that would be considered a lay up.


If there is a hole you consider a par 2 how many 1's willl that hole yield in a filed of 72, 970 and higher rated players?

If a top pro field only has one out of 72 players birdie the hole, isnt the par off?
Even the hardest holes on the PGA tour yield over 10% birdies( guesstimate), so by that standard 7 players would need to make a hole in one for it to be a par 2.
Wont Happen!

Some might feel that par doesnt matter, but in the long run it really does!
One of the jobs of the course designer is to establish the par for each hole and the course.

Would it be out of line for the pdga to send letters to basket manufactures, asking them to have the course designs approved before shipping PDGA approved targets?
I'm not saying make them just ask them to; and see where it goes.
It seems like every other day I hear about some poorly designed course going in and almost every time the baskets are coming from the same place!
Does approving targets for pdga play give the pdga any right to regulate how courses are designed for future pdga sanctioned events.
I think so, but hey, I'm for better course not just more :o

Dave,
Hope you don't mind if I chime in. I'd agree that under almost all conditions a 120 ft. shot is a lay-up. (exceptions being a hill backstop behind the bucket or last second heroics to try and come from behind.) I would still consider that lay-up as a "putt". A pro should be expected to get up and down from 120 and will occasionally drop one in. In golf there are lots and lots of times that a player is putting on the green and is praying to not three-putt.

As to the "par 2" that no pro birdies, I'd agree that is undesireable. I think it's equally undesireable to have the too-common hole where no pro bogeys. We had an example of the first at The Players Cup on hole 13. At 470 ft. we knew it was a stretch as a par-3, but hoped we'd get some birdies. We got plenty of bogeys and worse, and two players got inside 40 ft. from the tee, but no birdies. In retrospect that hole would have played much better in the 400-430 ft. range. We're planning on lengthening that hole for next year into a short par 5.

On the handicap front it looks like Disc Golf United is off to a good start. It will be nice to have a system where players can input any scores whether tournament, league, or casual and get a home course handicap that can be adjusted to any course through a "slope" conversion chart that can be posted at all courses.

some of our courses have 3 pin placements making some holes go from regular par 3 to hard par 4, how would you be able to input this info for the slope rating or your handicap?

I'm in favor of setting up courses like pro golf tournaments do where pins are ranked 1-6 in difficulty and the overall difficulty of the course is always set at 54. That way you would only have one handicap on a particular course from the teepads of your choosing.

Of course whoever sets the basket locations would have to adjust the hole handicaps and post them so that players of different handicaps could compete.

Once the terrain or challenge factor for a course is determined from any layout, all other layouts can be calculated by the online software by entering the alternate course lengths.

What about the tucked pin placements that are much shorter but play more difficult?

It doesn't make enough difference to worry about it when adjusted over 18 holes. Yes, it does make a difference in a pure math calcualtion but not enough relative to other assumptions and human variance involved in the overall calculation.

It would make a difference, however, if guys were playing a match and trying to determine on which holes they would get strokes.

No one should use the antiquated BG way of handicapping by hole. Total throws minus/plus handicap for the whole round is all that's needed. Maybe if match play handicapping is done it might make sense.

It doesn't make enough difference to worry about it when adjusted over 18 holes. Yes, it does make a difference in a pure math calcualtion but not enough relative to other assumptions and human variance involved in the overall calculation.


Good luck in your accuracy

Good luck in your accuracy



Using the process, we regularly forecast scores on new courses that haven't been played within a half shot so courses with scores are usually a piece of cake. Increased wind changes scoring more than any calculation based on one pin being more constricted than another.

Would you say your "process" would be more accurate for courses that have par closer to 54 than 72?
It would seem vaiables like low ceilings, sharp doglegs, sloped greens, par 4's that end to the right not left and sevaral other factors that separate a hard hole from an easy one ( not just distance or adjusted distance) would make it hard to be accurate.
In my opinion, only by averaging actual rounds played would be accurate.
Chuck can you send me the link to the information where you adjust the hole length etc.( send it to my regualar e mail [email protected],com) I have a scorecard for course that just went in and we have about 30 rounds recorded by a good range of players. I am curious to see how your process will translate to the actual scores for the 4 different layouts.

Something that you should consider is in what way do you determine "Average Score" David. "A variety of skill levels" is next to meaningless statistically, except for other sample groups that are identical.

That is where PDGA Player Ratings are so very valuable. Using the "Scratch Score Average", meaning the average of 1000 rated players, gives your calculations traction; relevance that is uniform around the World and across America. (Not just on who happened to show up the day you took your sample.) Chucks chart is based on those calculations, so though perhaps not as accurate as actual SSA, they are about as close as you can get without actually having a group of PDGA Rated players shoot a couple rounds on that course layout.

By using SSA, understand that you are also factoring things such as sharp bends in the fairway, elevation changes, even things like footing, etc, because they are built into the numbers as they are based on actual play on that actual course in relation to every other course.

It is quite remarkable when you think about it. What other throws to putting range and 2 or 1 throws to hole out par systems come with that level of accuracy?

Good luck in your accuracy



Using the process, we regularly forecast scores on new courses that haven't been played within a half shot so courses with scores are usually a piece of cake. Increased wind changes scoring more than any calculation based on one pin being more constricted than another.


Chuck, does your "process" have the same accuracy for everybody who uses it, or does that accuracy also depends on the "process-or"? I'm asking because it seems that in these par discussions, the tool you're advocating may be only as good as the person wielding it. Have you seen your "process" work well when you're not the person running the numbers?

Good luck in your accuracy



Using the process, we regularly forecast scores on new courses that haven't been played within a half shot so courses with scores are usually a piece of cake. Increased wind changes scoring more than any calculation based on one pin being more constricted than another.


Chuck, does your "process" have the same accuracy for everybody who uses it, or does that accuracy also depends on the "process-or"? I'm asking because it seems that in these par discussions, the tool you're advocating may be only as good as the person wielding it. Have you seen your "process" work well when you're not the person running the numbers?

It is quite remarkable when you think about it. What other throws to putting range and 2 or 1 throws to hole out par systems come with that level of accuracy?



What does this sentence mean or what are you trying to say?
I've read it 5 times wondering what 2 or 1 throws to hole par systems mean.

No one should use the antiquated BG way of handicapping by hole. Total throws minus/plus handicap for the whole round is all that's needed. Maybe if match play handicapping is done it might make sense.


Handicapping by holes works great for casual rounds of golf and that's what it's created for.

Many, many golfers don't really care what their total score is and often pick up their ball when they are "out of the hole". Golfers many times play rotating partners 6-6-6 with the net best ball on each hole being the only thing that matters. This game cannot be played without having each hole handicapped.

It is quite remarkable when you think about it. What other throws to putting range and 2 or 1 throws to hole out par systems come with that level of accuracy?



What does this sentence mean or what are you trying to say?
I've read it 5 times wondering what 2 or 1 throws to hole par systems mean.



David,

I'm talking about par theories, such as the one in our rule book, that relies on a formula of number of throws to the putting area plus (+) 1 or 2 close range throws to hole out. Some folks say one throw in disc golf, some say 2 close range throws to hole out. This based on an "expert" golfer.

The challenge with such formuli is what is an "expert" golfer? Not to mention what is a "close range throw"?

In my opinion, these questions (and more) can be answered by using the PDGA Ratings System. Still, as far as Par goes, there is much to be done to turn PDGA Ratings into a Par Standard folks can understand and use easily. I'd very much like to see that remedied and sooner rather than later.

2 putts on the green plus what it takes you to get there is the par. Why would you think otherwise?
In my opinion, when you are trying to figure out " the green" though, distance cannot be the only factor.
A tucked tight green may only be 30 X 20 or less, while a wide open green you could be considered on the green and putting up to 80-90 feet.
A 120 foot hole is still not a par 2, expert players just dont make 120 footers often enough.

You don't have to be able to make a putt to be considered on the green in golf. There are thousands and thousands of "putts" on the PGA tour that will NEVER be made, let alone rarely. There are golf putts that are the equivalent of a 250 ft. S curve with a 100 ft. dropoff 5 ft. past the hole.

At least you'll give a 80-90 ft. shot "putt" status. That's better than a lot of disc golfers that don't consider a 50 footer a "putt". Also, I still agree that 2 putts plus the number of strokes to get to the "green" is the defininition of "par".

Shouldnt par allow for 2 putts within say 60 feet not 120?



Why?

In th CR Par proposal the term "close range" is analagous to being on the grren in ball golf. This also recognizes the difference in putting between DG and BG. In BG a 60-80 ft putt is very common to be on the green, but very few scratch BG players would consistently make a putt of that length.

The CR Par method propose that 1 ft of a BG putt = 3 ft in DG. Therefore in DG a 120 shot = a 40 ft putt in BG, which is an extremely common length of a shot on the green.

The length of 120 ft. is delibarately chosen to take into account the 1.67 "Around the Green" (ATG) factor in DG.

Also, I still agree that 2 putts plus the number of strokes to get to the "green" is the defininition of "par".



Denny,

I agree with that definition too.

Lowe

[QUOTE]


The CR Par method propose that 1 ft of a BG putt = 3 ft in DG. Therefore in DG a 120 shot = a 40 ft putt in BG, which is an extremely common length of a shot on the green.






Players are not expected to make 40 footers in ball golf and rarely make 20 footers, thats why they give them 2 shots on the green for par.

Have you played much ball golf on non public courses?
A 2 foot putt with a side hill slider that has a stimp reading of 10 is like 40 foot sidehill putt into a headwind in disc golf. or 20 to 1.
Ive seen many 2 foot putts go 6 feet by even by top golfers

I would say the equivalant of a flat ground no wind no slope put,would be a 3 footer ( ball golf) to 25 footer( disc golf) which would be about 8 to 1.

Where is the 3 -1 mentioned and who came up with that ratio? :confused:

David,

I think the 3-1 ratio comes from casual conversations that disc golfers have to people who have never heard of our sport.

It is very easy for non-disc golfers to relate and visualize a disc golf course when we tell them, "In golf you will have a 500 yard hole, well we would have a 500ft hole which would play just as difficult in terms of length".

But I definately agree that our "green" is vastly different then ball golfs green. But I think it will vary in relation the closer you get to the pin. Where a 30ft putt 'DG' is the same as a 10ft putt "BG', but a 60ft putt in 'BG' is the same as a 120ft upshot in "DG'.

Proportionally I feel that we are more accurate throughout the fairway and upshots then even the best ball golfers. But I think this is a matter of proprotional size of the object being propelled through the course. Consider an "open" hole we have at our course. It is 400ft to the short basket with nothing in the way, and the fairway is 120ft wide. Me, a couple of other advanced players and our open players can reach this hole (while you will try and recally my 500yd/500ft anology, remember that was laymans terms to a non-discgolfer. Top BG'ers cannot hit a ball 450yds). Anyway, in comparison to driving our "open" hole at 120ft wide. Our discs on average are about a foot in diameter for arguements sake. Well that means my disc takes up 1/120th of the width of our fairway. Seems pretty open huh? Well, if you use that ratio in BG, that 400yd (lets make it scratch reachable 320yd) hole then becomes only 15ft wide! Which is a nearly impossible fairway for a BG hole.

So while in laymans terms we compare ourselves to ball golf, we are similar only in theory. Throwing discs on a ball golf course is fairly boring, if playing teebox to pin. This is probably also why our sport is deemed "easy" but the general uninformed public, and why I am in favor of each disc golf city having a course like Renny Gold, Winthrop Gold, Idlewild, etc. It would give the public something to be amazed by and respect the people who can play these courses with a high level of skill.

Even though I love my course, and it is a great learning course, George Ward is an easy course in comparison to the ones I mentioned above. But I will defend my home turf in saying that George Ward is the best pitch and putt course I have ever played.


(I have my own definition of par 2's. It is anything I am P.O.ed with after taking a 3 on.)

I would say the equivalant of a flat ground no wind no slope put,would be a 3 footer ( ball golf) to 25 footer( disc golf) which would be about 8 to 1.



David, I think your 8:1 ratio is closer to the mark than the 3:1 ratio mentioned, however if you extrapolate that to your disc golf definition of "putt" as 80-90 ft. then all ball golf greens would be 10-11 ft. in diameter.

Parkn: I like your definition of "par 2".

[QUOTE]
Also, I still agree that 2 putts plus the number of strokes to get to the "green" is the defininition of "par".



Happy New Year to everyone. May the new season bring us all luck with many under par rounds!

There appears to be several questions and interpretations of what "par" is and should never be (sorry, couldn't resist the Zeppelin pun). Here are true definitions from some of the the most widely used dictionaries today:

OXFORD ENGLISH - The number of strokes a first-class player should normally require for a particular hole or course.

CAMBRIDGE - The expected number of times that a good player should have to hit the ball in order to get it into a hole or all the holes.

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

WORDSMYTH - The number of strokes set as a standard for a skilled player on a hole or a course.

All the definitions read differently, but they all state the same thing. Par is the score standard for each hole/course in expert play.

No where does it state in any of these definitions that par must be a certain number of putts + strokes, etc. Only the total number of strokes required by highly skilled players.

If one uses the SSA for a particular hole and that hole (lets say 120') reveals an average of 2.49 or less, the hole averages closer to a par 2.

The length of a hole shouldn't determine par. Length obviously plays a huge factor in the process, but the player averages (SSA) will provide more accuracy in determining the actual par. There's nothing wrong with going back and adjusting par for a course after the fact...even it it means putting "Par 2" on the tee sign.

Jerry Gotcher
PDGA 7956

Instead of "putting 2 on the tee sign" why not move the tee or the basket so the hole's a par 3.

Par 2's fine in putt-putt, but that's the only place.

Would you say your "process" would be more accurate for courses that have par closer to 54 than 72?
It would seem variables like low ceilings, sharp doglegs, sloped greens, par 4's that end to the right not left and sevaral other factors that separate a hard hole from an easy one ( not just distance or adjusted distance) would make it hard to be accurate. In my opinion, only by averaging actual rounds played would be accurate.

Chuck can you send me the link to the information where you adjust the hole length etc.



Accuracy is the same at all hole & course lengths. Actual throwing data was used to initially create the Forecaster, then it was tested against actual results to improve the modeling. Experience helps to use it. However, Jon Lyksett nailed the numbers the first time he used it to do the analysis for that course in Moab toured by Juliana and Shawn that was featured in DGWN a few issues ago.

Finally break down and join the DGCD to get the hole analysis materials where you can forecast and check scoring spreads. You'll find it well worthwhile for your projects along with being able to discuss online these issues with those who are out there doing designs on a regular basis. It worked great for the Mid-Nationals where I've entered all the data from the event to see where changes might be needed. In most cases, the scoring average and distributions were dead on within 0.2 throws per hole.

Chuck,
Is there a special thread through the pdga for the DGCD and is it only for members of the DGCD to view and post?
I dont mind paying the $45 to be involved with the conversation, but how do you gain credibility as a course designer within the group?
Do you think everyone who has joined the group so far has the ability to design 1st class disc golf courses?
Do you have a list of current members?

The DGCD is independent of the PDGA and has its own Yahoo discussion group only for our 87 members, more than half you would likely know like Duvall, Houck, Monroe, Wolfe, McDaniel, Duster and Greenwell. I'll email you the standard info on joining.

Also, I still agree that 2 putts plus the number of strokes to get to the "green" is the defininition of "par".



Happy New Year to everyone. May the new season bring us all luck with many under par rounds!

There appears to be several questions and interpretations of what "par" is and should never be (sorry, couldn't resist the Zeppelin pun). Here are true definitions from some of the the most widely used dictionaries today:

OXFORD ENGLISH - The number of strokes a first-class player should normally require for a particular hole or course.

CAMBRIDGE - The expected number of times that a good player should have to hit the ball in order to get it into a hole or all the holes.

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

WORDSMYTH - The number of strokes set as a standard for a skilled player on a hole or a course.

All the definitions read differently, but they all state the same thing. Par is the score standard for each hole/course in expert play.

No where does it state in any of these definitions that par must be a certain number of putts + strokes, etc. Only the total number of strokes required by highly skilled players.

If one uses the SSA for a particular hole and that hole (lets say 120') reveals an average of 2.49 or less, the hole averages closer to a par 2.

The length of a hole shouldn't determine par. Length obviously plays a huge factor in the process, but the player averages (SSA) will provide more accuracy in determining the actual par. There's nothing wrong with going back and adjusting par for a course after the fact...even it it means putting "Par 2" on the tee sign.

Jerry Gotcher
PDGA 7956



Jerry,

You forgot the most important definition of all. This is from the PDGA Rules:
"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."

To my mind the PDGA definition is the only one that matters. The USGA definition used in ball golf is similar and instructive, though. It states:
"Par is the score that an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary playing conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green.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.) [From Section 16 PAR COMPUTATION]"

Personally, I believe that using "effective playing length" is the best way to determine par, and a player should be allowed 2 close range shots to hole out.

Take care,
Lowe

In order for a par 2 to exist, you would have to be putting from the tee. Even a 180 ft wide open hole is a par 3. It is an easy par 3, with a poor spread, and a pro scoring average that might lead someone into thinking it was a par 2. A real par 2 would have a pro scoring average around 2.0 or so. Some par 2s might score as low as 1.4, but don't be lead astray, they're really par 2s. A par 1 would have to be a slam dunk, or better yet, an automatically scored ace. The point of this diatribe is, besides beating the horse that won't die, is that scoring average and par are not the same thing, even in the rare cases where the number is the same. Scoring averages tell you how hard the par is. It is useful information along with scoring spread. Scoring spread is another bit of useful information that can't be taken by itself to mean anything without examination. IMO, we absolutely need scoring averages to help us with course design analysis and player analysis. Scoring averages are also useful for assigning par for par 4 and par 5 holes. Not essential, but useful. Scoring averages are useful (but not essential) for assigning par when it is a case of deciding between a par 3 and a par 4. (sometimes a difficult decision.) Sometimes the decision is made for statistics, sometimes made for form, (as in the case of easy par 3s that average less than 2.5, and in the case of par 5s that average more than 5.5).

In order for a par 2 to exist, you would have to be putting from the tee. Even a 180 ft wide open hole is a par 3. It is an easy par 3, with a poor spread, and a pro scoring average that might lead someone into thinking it was a par 2. A real par 2 would have a pro scoring average around 2.0 or so. Some par 2s might score as low as 1.4, but don't be lead astray, they're really par 2s. A par 1 would have to be a slam dunk, or better yet, an automatically scored ace. The point of this diatribe is, besides beating the horse that won't die, is that scoring average and par are not the same thing, even in the rare cases where the number is the same. Scoring averages tell you how hard the par is. It is useful information along with scoring spread. Scoring spread is another bit of useful information that can't be taken by itself to mean anything without examination. IMO, we absolutely need scoring averages to help us with course design analysis and player analysis. Scoring averages are also useful for assigning par for par 4 and par 5 holes. Not essential, but useful. Scoring averages are useful (but not essential) for assigning par when it is a case of deciding between a par 3 and a par 4. (sometimes a difficult decision.) Sometimes the decision is made for statistics, sometimes made for form, (as in the case of easy par 3s that average less than 2.5, and in the case of par 5s that average more than 5.5).


I take this as you agree, we (the pdga or any course designer) should not call holes par 2's or par 6's

3s, 4s, and 5s only.

All the discussion here has been great!! I understand a lot more than I did. But, I am still not sure when a hole should be penalized for being 'too long'. :confused:

It seems like some holes could be the 'wrong' distance, for the intended skill level, and still be decent holes. When should holes be penalized, from a course evaluation perspective, for being too much of an incorrect distance?

BTW fellow course evaluators, I have been trying to read the message board history on the Yahoo! groups site (which has more fantastic dialouge...I would recommend it to anyone who hasnt read them yet), but it takes a while to get through 2000+ posts....especially when most of them are very detailed and thought-provoking. Im sure there is more discussion on the subject that I will eventually get to.

3s, 4s, and 5s only.



Daves, please provide definitions for the following:

Disc Golf Expert
Disc Golf Green

Are your definitions universal?
Are they able to be statistically verified?
Are they currently verified?

If a player plays a course where all holes have an SSA of 2.3 and a player averages 54 on it, is he as good as a player that averages 54 on a course where all holes have an SSA of 3.01?

How can a par based on your definition of Expert and Green provide any meaningful basis upon which to compare the two players or courses?

If I were to agree with Dave's call for only par 3, 4 and 5s, it would mean that there is one heck of a lot of work to do out there to fix holes that are too short or easy or that are too long or difficult. I don't want to see par 2s anymore than either of you, but that there are holes (and a lot of them) that have a SSA of well below 2.5 is not even a question.

In my opinion, to treat them the exact same way, according to par, is to close your eyes to their true nature and to negate any possibility of handling them, par wise, in any meaningful way.

The key is to create a par system that does not ignore holes with SSAs below 2.5 or above 5.5 but to manage them properly so that we do not have to say they are par 2s and par 6s when correct and appropriate skill level is applied to those layouts.

I am hopeful that Chuck's soon to be released standards for par will handle this all elequently.

Again, this has little baring on the PDGA Course Evaluation Program other than for the appropriateness of challenge consideration, where par 2s and 6s need never be discussed, just the SSAs or an approximation of them.

I think you get it now. Correct and appropriate skill level applied to those courses or tee/pin layouts.

If a course SSA is at or below 54, then the course can't be given a gold par. It has to move down the rating scale to blue or white or red (or whatever labels you choose to use).

It should be fairly simple for a player to determine their skill level if the courses are categorized appropriately.

If I can easily play course par on a course rated for 850 players, then I should shoot 8-10 over course par on a course rated for 950 players.

Who cares what par is??? At the end of the tournament everyone adds up how many shots they had and the player with the least amount wins!!!

I think most players will always keep score from par 3 even if the course is legit par 72.

Wow..............par 5 is huge.

If course par is 72 and you're looking for an "easier" way to do the math, then you'd make 4 par, not 3.

Who cares what par is???



1) Local Leagues
2) It will be very useful for PDGA Course Evaluators
3) Any possible Handicap System
4) Players that would like to know how they are shooting compared to every other disc golfer with a player rating
5) People learning about disc golf for the first time who have some concept of golf
6) Mainstream Media

I appreciate that you have no use for it, can you appreciate that I do? Seriously, is it going to cause problems for you to have a meaningful par standard? And how much is it going to cost the PDGA to set it?

well put, Nick

One of the main points is to be able to compare the scores of players at different points on the course.

In BG, it's not unreasonable to expect players to shoot close to par and you know that 3 down with 6 to play is not dramatically better than 3 down with 1 to play. In DG, knowing what one player is shooting tells you nothing about how close their score is to another player on a different part of the course.

Kind of makes a leader board prior to the final 9 (where every one is pretty much on the same card) pointless.

Instead of "putting 2 on the tee sign" why not move the tee or the basket so the hole's a par 3.

Par 2's fine in putt-putt, but that's the only place.



Why is par 2 only acceptable in miniature golf?

My position on this topic is the fact that we (the disc golf community) are finally recognizing the fact that not every hole is a par 3. I have been arguing this idea since I began playing the sport in 1991. Until now, my discussions have always centered around the idea that there are par 4s and par 5s in our sport. It's been a loooong time coming, but we have seen this "par 3" mindset slowly eroding, particularly among a growing number of course designers. Unfortunately, many players still don't see the light...

Back in the 90's, two of the dumbest things I would occasionally hear on the course is "this hole has never been birdied" or "a bogey is good on this hole". As a golfer who later discovered disc golf, comments like this would leave me scratching my head. Since when is a bogey good?

Nonetheless, here I am fifteen years discussing par 2s! I do want to set the record straight, however. I am not a fan of par 2 holes and I am not a proponent of designing par 2 courses/holes. I tend to avoid pitch & putt venues because I simply do not care for throw...putt...throw...putt, throw...putt, etc.

I remember a tournament at Horizons park (Winston-Salem, NC) where I shot one of my lowest rounds ever...13 down. Unfortunately for me, Johnny Sias shot a -15, Larry Leonard shot -16 and a local advanced player tied the course record at -17! The other 3 rounds were pretty much the same...many players, both pro and advanced, shooting -12, -13, -14, etc. Even intermediate players can close in on double digits at that course.

Back to my original question...if par 2 is okay for miniature golf, why would it not be okay for a course like Horizons? I'm not saying that every hole on that course should be considered a par 2, but judging by the scores consistently posted there, I would definitely not call Horizons Park a par 54 course. The SSA for this course is listed at approximately 41.

Did you ever stop to consider we already have some "miniature" disc golf courses...or "putt-putt" type holes on existing courses? Sure, most of these courses were not intentionally designed as "putt-putt" style, but statistical data would prove otherwise in some cases. Though I have not played it (shame on me), Virginia's The Grange has a par 2 "Tiki Course" which I've heard numerous mid-Atlantic players rave about. My old club, the Arlington Disc Golf Association, frequently sets up a temporary par 2 course ("Ace Golf") for a couple of their yearly events. The idea of par 2 is widely accepted among players and everyone has a lot of fun playing our own version of a "putt-putt" disc golf course.

Thanks for one of the more enjoyable threads on the DISCussion board. Lots of good commentary in these posts.

Jerry

p.s. Denny, your first statement I quoted suggests moving the basket or tee rather than recognize them as par 2. I think that's a great idea and I would love to see several courses redesigned (I've played approx 200), but the fact is that there is absolutely no room in some of these parks for expansion. Heck, some of the 18 hole courses I've played would be much more enjoyable (and safer) as a 9 hole with separate tees.

p.s.s. I hope the NC guys do not take any offense to my comments regarding Horizons Park. Fun little course to play. It's the only course I have ever played wearing sandles and tossing only one disc (shooting a -12 with an XD).

What would be wrong with identifying the pitch and putt courses as pitch and putt (recreation) level course and let them stay as par three holes ?

Good question. World Class stats don't work with recreational courses. There is nothing wrong with recreational courses. Many rec courses are very popular and very fun for all level players. Reality is that there are different types of courses out there now. I think we have at least four levels of courses right now and there is no reason not to identify them. At one end of the spectrum we have Fewel Park in Rock Hill SC. Fewel park might have 1 or two holes that don't average below 2.5. At the other end, we have Winthrop Gold in Rock Hill SC. In between we have long and short all par 3, and many other courses with a mix of world class and recreational holes. A single hole, (possibly two), that averages 2.4, on an otherwise demanding world class course won't hurt statistics. Especially if there are several difficult Par 3s or Par 4s. Course evaluations should, IMO, keep the overall mix in mind when assigning a course level rating. If the overall hole scoring average is too low, then rate the course appropriately as rec, intermediate, advanced, pro, or whateever.

We installed a 6-hole course at a Boys 'n' Girls club in Sarasota. The course is all par 3's for the kids. If a pro were to play it, it'd be all par 2's

This course is a wonderful way for kids to get introduced to the sport on their own course.The shots are 90-150 ft. and require a bit of shaping to get to the basket.

There will never be a pro tournament there and there shouldn't be.

There are many good rec courses out there that introduce people to the game and are still a great putter work-out for better players. As for having tournament on these "retro" courses I'd suggest alternate temp tees and baskets if possible
OR
a true retro event where everyone plays only with an Aero, wears short shorts, mullets are mandatory, and the Bee Gees are blasted throughout the course.

I'm not joking about the retro event, I think it'd be fun. Well, maybe not the parts about short shorts, mullets, or the Bee Gees.

One of the main points is to be able to compare the scores of players at different points on the course.

In BG, it's not unreasonable to expect players to shoot close to par and you know that 3 down with 6 to play is not dramatically better than 3 down with 1 to play. In DG, knowing what one player is shooting tells you nothing about how close their score is to another player on a different part of the course.

Kind of makes a leader board prior to the final 9 (where every one is pretty much on the same card) pointless.



This is an excellent point.

Another point not mentioned is the one of "Fairness" in instances where a player shows up late for a round and must take Par plus 4 throws. If a hole is has an SSA of 2.1, then giving that player 3 + 4= 7 is overly punative. Similarly if a hole has an SSA of 5.8, then giving that player 5 + 4 is not punative enough, concidering what other players are having to deal with (on average) on that hole.

I am in favor of eliminating all par 2s for specified skill levels, as well as par 6s, but not by method of burrying ones head in the sand and ignoring what players of that specific skill group average on that hole; buy redesigning it to acutally not be a par 2 or 6.

As a poster shows there are clear uses for par 2 courses, but for PDGA competition for skill levels Gold - Red (all) they are not "golf-like" enough. That is just my opinion though.

I know that the stumbling block is a philosophic one. But as far as what is necessary to include ALL EXISTING HOLES within a single and functional par system, par 2s and 6s must be recognized for what they are; even if we decide to manipulate it so that they are never officially called a par 2 or par 6 on the scorecard or tee sign.

If the objection to par 6 holes is that they don't exist in ball golf, let's clear that up right now. There are at least 50 ball golf holes around the world listed as par 6s and the USGA formally lists them in their handicap table as holes over 700 yards. There may be just a few permanent par 6s in disc golf so far (not yet listed) with Highbridge listing a new one this year on the Gold course at around 1300 feet (downhill).

OK, so now it appears that there ARE good reasons for both par 2s and par 6s.

The thing that I'm concerned with is that par actually have a useful meaning. If it upsets a few folks that can't philosophically handle par 2s and 6s, oh well, without them par is as meaningless (and useless) as it is under current definition and use, and that is unacceptable.

I don't like par 6's, although I'm struggling to come up with a good reason not to have them. Having said that, I'd much rather have a par 6 on the scorecard than a "par 5" which averages 6.

I don't like par 6's, although I'm struggling to come up with a good reason not to have them.


Well, maybe we should all just play better!

I can see the headlines now.

PAR 6 EXTINCT

The last Par 6 fell today after the seventh day of bogeyless play on the hole. "We didn't want to change the sign," said the course maintainer, "just for posterity's sake, but durn it, it's gettin' ridiculous. People are throwing with their eyes closed!"

Rather than being repainted, the Par 6 sign is being sent to the Smithsonian for their new disc golf exhibit...

Who cares what par is??? At the end of the tournament everyone adds up how many shots they had and the player with the least amount wins!!!

I think most players will always keep score from par 3 even if the course is legit par 72.



Why Disc Golf needs consistent par standards:
1. In tournaments when a player is late you need the par for a hole to know what penalty score to give that player. (The penalty is par + 4 for missed holes.)
2. For tournaments a consistent standard allows over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
3. So that players can judge their progress by comparison to a consistent standard for what an expert player can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
3.1. One of the first questions that most new players ask is �What is par on this hole?� We should be able to give them a consistent and universally accepted answer.
4. It is easier to keep track of scores in relation to par than by the total numerical value. This is why most players report their score as �6 down� rather than �48�.
5. The reality of disc golf being a golf type game is that the terms �par�, �under par�, �bogey� and �birdie� naturally accompany the sport. It would be strange to have a sport with the word �golf� in it that doesn�t use these terms. If we�re going to use the term �par� then it should have a standard method of determining it.
6. In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
7. Par is an important factor for comparing the difficulty of different courses. Otherwise there is an insurmountable �portability error�.
8. Expectations of par affect your mental outlook and your performance. This especially comes into play when you play a new course. If Renaissance Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough. If you think you should take a 3 on a 1000 ft. hole then you will try way too hard, but if you accept that it is a par 5 you can relax and pace yourself.
9. If the term �par� is defined in a multitude of ways by many different people then the term loses its meaning, so it becomes worthless along with the related terms such as �birdie, bogie��.
10. To be able to determine handicaps.

If the objection to par 6 holes is that they don't exist in ball golf, let's clear that up right now. There are at least 50 ball golf holes around the world listed as par 6s and the USGA formally lists them in their handicap table as holes over 700 yards. There may be just a few permanent par 6s in disc golf so far (not yet listed) with Highbridge listing a new one this year on the Gold course at around 1300 feet (downhill).



That was mainly my objection. I stand corrected. Thanks Chuck.

I know of one par 6 in our region. Hole 10 at Nockamixon. Statistically it has an SSA of 5.8. I know when I play it a 6 definately feels like a par. Being a 965 or so golfer I do not even average 6 on this hole. A 5 feels like a birdie and a 4 is a double birdie. The cool thing about a par 6 is that a 3 (though only remotely possible) would be a triple birdie. Now that would be nice to have cause it is basically equivalent to an ace!

On the side of having a meaningful par standard, no course better demonstrates the need for at least a near statistically appropriate par than Nockamixon. That is when you play it with folks that know the hole and course par, and you talk your fourth par and a row and all of them were 4s, you can kind of mentally deal with it better. Also you can have a better idea of how your "really" are playing, even though you have taken a 7 and 3 or 4 5s.

The challenge is to have them set for the specified skill level for the course. Meaning if it is a BLUE course and intended for players with a Player Rating around 950, then the pars of the wholes need to also be set by that skill level. This will allow other skill levels playing that layout to still know how they shot in relation to all other skill levels because they can know approximately the difference between each skill level. I am interested to see if the new par system coming out will accomplish this.

This can get complicated though, and I wonder if it would be better to have a single par skill standard for everyone. The problem for that though is that then you have the dreaded par 2s going up on holes to maintain meaningful par for the top players or Super Experts.

I know of one par 6 in our region. Hole 10 at Nockamixon. Statistically it has an SSA of 5.8.



Nope. At the Nockamixon Open on Sun, Jun 5, 2005, it had a hole average of 5.35 and SSA of close to 5.0. Even at the Nockamixon Ammo Series tournament from 2005 which is likely where you are quoting your data, it had a hole average of 6.1 and a SSA of 5.4.

That hole is not a par 6.

... The cool thing about a par 6 is that a 3 (though only remotely possible) would be a triple birdie. Now that would be nice to have cause it is basically equivalent to an ace!



Wouldn't a 3 on a par 6 be BETTER than an Ace on standard Par 3?

6-3 = 3 strokes better than par
3-1 = Nick still a douchhe ;)

This is an important topic. I have seen some excellent feedback here
and think many of these opinions have make solid, clear points.

We are discussing course evaluation here? Why is course design
coming up again and again? Probably because we are realizing that it
is one of the most critical elements of a course. Perhaps it is
worth more than 3 or 4 criteria on the course evaluation. Course
design may have more overall effect on the quality of a course than
anything else.

There is a lot of material on course evaluation and design that I
haven't read yet, but plan on doing so very soon. I find the Yahoo
board a difficult place to dig for information. This PDGA forum
sometimes requires a lot of filtering to find the truly informative
posts.

These are some thoughts I had a couple of weeks ago in response to
some posts in this subject area of the PDGA forum. My thoughts have
already evolved a great deal on the concept of how disc golf should
be played. I'm sure it will continue to evolve with all the good
feedback given by the current experts on the subject. I thought I
might offer some of these ideas up for both some useful feedback and
also to see how my ideas will change in the future after becoming
more familiar with other professional's views.



Good course design... (so far)

We are begining to model our game more and more after (ball) golf.
Why not? Look at the success of ball golf and see also how much more
dynamic, less expensive, and easy to learn disc golf is. It is time
for disc golf to earn the same respect ball golf has. This may cause
the need for the game to adapt to new, higher standards.



Effort has promoted disc golf to establish a course's different
difficulties by using red, white, blue, and gold tees. This follows
in the footsteps of golf. One difference I see here is that in ball
golf, gold tees are for pros, blues are for marginal pros, whites are
for top ams, and reds are for top amateur/ marginal pro women. That
is my approximation. Disc golf might be seen as similar with the pro
(1000 rated), pro/advanced (950 rated), advanced (900 rated), and
amateur (850 rated) players. The difference is this... at least 25%
of disc golfers (espescially those who compete) can shoot (par) at a
white level or better. Only what?, 2% of ball golfers can achieve
this.

Now, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the skill levels
(ratings) that have been chosen for the approximate representations
for the different color levels in disc golf. I'm certainly glad that
red doesn't represent a novice 700 rated players skill. My point to
this is that it is a bit misleading when we say that blue, white, and
red golf tees are not based upon professional standards. The average
golfer shoots over 100, but we don't see par 7's and 8's. Disc golf
needs to focus on what is good for disc golf, however. The skill
levels that have been chosen may be the most appropriate for this.



Next, I see that with the new course evaluation program, existing
disc golf courses are conforming to this color system, but perhaps in
an inappropriate way. Specifically, the longest course (not really
even factoring pin placements) is being considered the blue course
and shorter courses are considered white first, and red if there are
3 sets of tees.

If the skill colors are supposed to represent the corresponding
rating levels, designating all of these previously designed holes for
certain specific skill levels simply because of the pads' relation in
length with one another is going to CREATE SOME POOR(ly designed??)
HOLES. If we consider looking at scoring averages and such, it is
very well possible that a short tee would be more appropriate for a
pro than a long tee and vice versa. I'm not suggesting that we
switch the tees around and change the par for each pad. I'm just
establishing that courses which don't have design standards that
accept these levels of play for the tees are going to be considered
lacking when compared to those that do. This may be good for the
future of the sport, but perhaps not in a clear enough way. 90% of
the existing courses don't conform to the ideas about skill level/
pad color/ par that are being discussed.

Which brings up par... The Scratch Scoring Average really needs to
be a part of course evaluations and even posted at the course. If we
don't even consider the course's difficulty as a whole, how can we
consider it on an individual hole basis? We have one course who's
SSA for red is higher than a blue SSA on a different course. We say
this is ok because the red course could be considered to have more
par 4's. I want to know just how many courses have accurately
labeled par for different skill levels. This hasn't happened because
par hasn't been clearly defined and established for our sport.

My point is not that we should determine the skill level/ color of
the tees played by the SSA, but that courses need to be categorized
by SSA. Simply listing it would be effective, but coming up with a
difficulty classification system would by a very good compliment to
the skill level classification for the tees.

We already have the system for establishing SSA, which takes in hole
length, trees on the fairway, etc. This could be considered superior
to ball golf's more complicated methods of determining course ratings
and slope ratings and what not, but we have got to make use of it.
If we don't, courses will all be considered par 54, which makes
useless all of these concepts we are discussing. I would suggest
something to categorize courses by SSA -40 (1 on the ten scale of
difficulty), 41-43(2), 44-46, 47-50, 51-54, 55-58, 59-62, 63-66, 67-
70, 70+(10 out of 10). This might want to be geared towards higher
par. SSA are currently so low because courses are designed for lower
skill levels.

The SSA could easily be adjusted for other skill levels, right? Gold
SSA= what we use now. Blue SSA would add 5 strokes per round on an
equivalent lay-out. White would add ten and Red 15. Would
compression be a factor when adjusting SSA for different skill
levels? This is something that deserves some thought. If we go
through the trouble of rating courses differently from different pads
in terms of different skill levels, than each skill level at least
deserves there own course par (which hopefully will be similar to the
par for the other skill levels). Perhaps some day we will evolve to
a standard, such as ball golf's par 70-72, and get off the eternal
pitch and 2-putt thinking.



As difficult as it is to establish course pars, we are also looking
at hole par as an important part of course design. We have a big
problem to overcome in order to start setting good hole pars.

Right now, in theory, we use scoring averages to establish hole
pars. This seems to be one of the main topics of debate here. One
course might have 18 holes around 2.6 strokes per hole. Another may
have 3.4 strokes on average per hole. If you round off the holes to
make par 3 for every hole, you get 54 for each course. The SSA's for
these courses respectively are 47 and 61, almost a stroke per hole
different. This may be an extreme example, but clearly this method
isn't very accurate. This is the system that we are supporting right
now. Calling easy courses with low hole averages of 2.4 as all par
2's would make 18 of these type holes a par 36 course, which is quite
contrary to the actual SSA.

What is the solution? Set par at 3.25 or 2.5? This would obviously
bring about more trouble than the matter is possibly worth. What
would happen if the pars averaged 2.9-3.1 or 3.8-4.2? The course par
would be close to the SSA. But these holes are considered "grey"
areas or poorly designed holes with low scoring spread.

Though I am inexperienced in the field of course design, I naturally
challenge this notion. Ball golf courses offer the chance for birdie
and bogey, yet they average close to the designed par for the
professional level. Does this mean all ball golf holes are bad?

I'm suggesting that there may be a better method for determining
scoring spread than the current system (scoring average). I'll give
a couple of examples. Say one hole creates 10 scores of 2, 2, 2, 2,
3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 to give an average of 2.6. Another hole has scores
of 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4 to give an average of 3.0. Which
hole has a better design? Both holes average 60% par. One hole
offers 3 different scores, while the other just 2. If we use
standard deviation (square root of variance, and variance is the sum
of the squares of the individual differences from the mean) to
measure how good the scoring spread is, we get the following results�
A standard deviation of 1.55 for the 2.6 average hole and 2.00 for
the 3.0 average hole.

I don't know that using this method is the best way to look at
scoring spreads. It certainly isn't the quickest or easiest. It
just seems like something that should be considered. It's been said
that scoring spread doesn't determine how good a hole is by itself.
Make a pinball fairway and the scoring spread will skyrocket. But is
that type of hole fair? Fair in the sense that everyone has to play
it, but not fair considering that many good shots are punished.
Wide, open holes are the other end of the spectrum. At certain
distances, these holes get virtually no scoring spread. Somewhere in
between lies the key to good course design. Just what is a good
fairway?

There is a privately owned course in the KC area called Ted's Dread.
The course plays pro par 60 on the short settings and pro par 70 on
the longs. It creatively mixes trees, elevation, & water hazards on
the same holes. To shoot well, you have to not only be on your game,
but you have to have a strategy. The course is very fun to play and
offers excellent scoring spread without being unfair. It would be
interesting to see the course get SSA's and hole pars assigned.
These are the kind of courses the sport needs to evolve towards.

Back to ball golf and scoring averages� you don't see ball golf holes
that average 2.5 strokes per hole. The holes difficulties are not
designed however so that each hole has the field averaging exactly
par. Pro averages on a tournament quality par 3 hole might be in the
3.1-3.2 range. Pro averages for the par 5 holes might be in the 4.7-
4.8 range. This is expected for these types of holes. Over a
complete round these scoring averages offset each other and the pro
player who is playing up to but not above his/her average ability
will shoot around par for the course. There are still both birdies
and bogeys on these holes. I'm not sure how the standard deviation
compares, but it must be decent or the game wouldn't be interesting.
The greater difficulty of ball golf creates much of this sport's
scoring spread, which of course tapers off a lot with the players of
professional skill. I think ball golf's model of hole par compared
to scoring average does set a good example for disc golf. Perhaps
slightly harder par 3's and easier par 5's would work well with the
right design.



Some other thoughts to ponder�..Ball golf does have some glaring
differences. Ball golf has a definitive green area. Par considers
the appropriate number and length of shots required to reach the
green plus 2 putts. Ball golfers are expected to hole out from 8' or
less. This represents only 1% of the distance of the hole. Disc
golfers are expected to make 25' putts, up to 10% of the hole
length. If players can easily throw within this "green" range, the
hole should be considered a par 2. We need to define the green in
disc golf as the area where one averages 2 shots to the hole. Just
as fairways are hard to define in disc golf due to the nature of
using trees as obstacles in the fairway, so greens are the same. I
believe that both should use trees in the fairway with thicker trees
or rough outside the fairway. This could help define disc golf
fairways and greens. Just as trees on the fairway increase the
quality of the hole by requiring controlled drives, so does trees on
the green increase the quality by requiring controlled second shots.
Ball golfers are very attentive to what angle of putt they leave
themselves. With the green being the "par 2 zone", emphasis should
be taken off the 10 meter circle (the less than 1.5 par zone). Maybe
an area could be actually marked with rocks or something similar on
some of the longer disc golf courses with tougher greens. This would
be both interesting and novel.



In summary, what do we want for disc golf? Do we want holes that
average 3.0 & 4.0, or holes that average 2.5 and 3.5? Do we have a
contradiction here? Perhaps, not. Maybe how we judge good hole
design has more depth than just the scoring average. In situations
with wide, open golf, there may be only 2 appropriate scores for a
hole. Over-tight holes might have scores ranging from 2-7. The
balance lies in the middle. I think the optimal situation would be
having holes where a birdie or bogey is possible or even likely, yet
par for the hole is a true representation of par and the scoring
average for the respective division of play.


Here are my main points:

--- We need hole pars that accurately reflect par and offer chances
for birdie and bogey. Strategic use of trees and elevation do as
much for this cause as does the correct distance.

--- For each skill level that a course has tees for, SSA should be
posted for course to course comparison.

--- We should develop a way to classify different SSA ranges. We
should promote courses moving towards a par of 65-70. Current pro
par 54 courses might make good red par 65-70 courses.

--- Inform evaluators that assigning blue tees to the longest
configuration for the course may not be the best choice in terms of
how the quality of hole design is affected by scoring spread.

Holy crap we can post as Anominous? Sweet!

I just misread "UBBCode in your posts" as "UBBCode in your pants".

Sorry Vanessa.

Also, I still agree that 2 putts plus the number of strokes to get to the "green" is the definition of "par".



All the definitions read differently, but they all state the same thing. Par is the score standard for each hole/course in expert play.

No where does it state in any of these definitions that par must be a certain number of putts + strokes, etc. Only the total number of strokes required by highly skilled players.

If one uses the SSA for a particular hole and that hole (lets say 120') reveals an average of 2.49 or less, the hole averages closer to a par 2.

The length of a hole shouldn't determine par. Length obviously plays a huge factor in the process, but the player averages (SSA) will provide more accuracy in determining the actual par. There's nothing wrong with going back and adjusting par for a course after the fact...even it it means putting "Par 2" on the tee sign.

Jerry Gotcher
PDGA 7956



Your post summarizes well the core philosophy of the Score Average (SA) Par philosophy, but disc golf course designers are divided in their view of par. Those holding to Ball Golf (BG) Par and Close Range (CR) Par view the concept of par differently. At the core these philosophies are fundamentally different.

I think that the main concern that drives SA Par is the desire for par to be as close to expert scores as possible. In the past I believed in SA Par and used it as the standard for par on the courses that I played and evaluated. Then I changed my mind about the core concept of par.

I think that the main concern that drives BG and CR Par is the question, "what would errorless play be on a specific hole?" If par is based on errorless play then score averages are not important. If it�s a par 3 then it doesn�t matter how many people score a 4 or higher. All that matters is that errorless play requires 1 throw plus 2 close range shots to finish the hole.

For brevity I will use CR par as the standard, although BG shares a similar philosophy. It would be too tedious to write out each time "CR and BG par".

CR Par is primarily determined by effective playing length, with elevation changes and forced layups already included in the calculations of effective length. Factors that increase the score average include foliage density, and OB. CR par believes that in spite of the foliage density and throws added due to OB you only need to determine what errorless play would be allowing throws in regulation plus 2 close range throws to hole out.

So even if you have a foliage factor of 9 (pinball) and a hole totally surrounded by OB the only concern is still answering the question, �what would errorless play be?� If it takes one errorless throw, plus 2 close range throws to complete the hole then it is a par 3. Let's look at a hypothetical example to make a point.

Imagine a hole that is flat, 480 ft. long, with a foliage factor of �tighter� ( or 8) so there is a narrow, densely tree lined, 8 ft wide corridor to the basket. Also assume that the fairway is on a peninsula into the water. If a shot kicks off the fairway then it is OB in the water, and 19 out of 20 Gold level players will go OB on the hole. So what is par on this hole? Using the CR par method this is still a par 3.

Let me explain how this is determined. With CR Par the maximum length of a par 3 is 480 ft. This is calculated from a drive of 360 ft plus a close range shot of 120 ft. (360 is derived from the average Gold driving distance of 380 ft. minus 20 ft. to get a length the 75% of Gold players would reach, and 120 comes from 360 x 0.33.) Errorless play on this hole would mean a drive of 360 ft that hit no trees and landed in the fairway then a close range throw of 120 ft. to get near the basket, then 1 putt to finish the hole. The fact that there will be very few pars and many 4s, 5s, and 6s more is not relevant. Even though most experts will not do it the fact still remains that errorless play by an expert would still result in a score of 3.

Under these conditions the DGCD Hole Forecaster gives an estimated SSA of 4.58 for a Gold (1000 PR) player. Using the SA Par method this hole is an easy par 5.

So you can see that CR Par and SA Par are based on fundamentally different philosophies of how to determine par, and they yield different results. In extreme cases the differences can be quite dramatic. The CR (and BG) Par methods have been harder for me to conceptualize and harder to explain in words. I changed from using SA Par when I began to understand and hold to the concept of "errorless play".

I�m constantly reevaluating where I stand on these issues, so I welcome your comments and critique.

Regards,
Lowe

BTW, if the CR Par method is used then the difference between par and Scoring average becomes a good index of hole difficulty. SA Par can do this too, but is more limited since par will always be set as close as possible to SSA. If you have a par 3 with an SSA of 3.7 then it is a very tough hole, but if it has an SSA of 2.6 then it is an easy hole.

This is an important topic. I have seen some excellent feedback here
and think many of these opinions have make solid, clear points.

We are discussing course evaluation here? Why is course design
coming up again and again? Probably because we are realizing that it
is one of the most critical elements of a course. Perhaps it is
worth more than 3 or 4 criteria on the course evaluation. Course
design may have more overall effect on the quality of a course than
anything else.

There is a lot of material on course evaluation and design that I
haven't read yet, but plan on doing so very soon. I find the Yahoo
board a difficult place to dig for information. This PDGA forum
sometimes requires a lot of filtering to find the truly informative
posts.

These are some thoughts I had a couple of weeks ago in response to
some posts in this subject area of the PDGA forum. My thoughts have
already evolved a great deal on the concept of how disc golf should
be played. I'm sure it will continue to evolve with all the good
feedback given by the current experts on the subject. I thought I
might offer some of these ideas up for both some useful feedback and
also to see how my ideas will change in the future after becoming
more familiar with other professional's views.



Good course design... (so far)

We are begining to model our game more and more after (ball) golf.
Why not? Look at the success of ball golf and see also how much more
dynamic, less expensive, and easy to learn disc golf is. It is time
for disc golf to earn the same respect ball golf has. This may cause
the need for the game to adapt to new, higher standards.



Effort has promoted disc golf to establish a course's different
difficulties by using red, white, blue, and gold tees. This follows
in the footsteps of golf. One difference I see here is that in ball
golf, gold tees are for pros, blues are for marginal pros, whites are
for top ams, and reds are for top amateur/ marginal pro women. That
is my approximation. Disc golf might be seen as similar with the pro
(1000 rated), pro/advanced (950 rated), advanced (900 rated), and
amateur (850 rated) players. The difference is this... at least 25%
of disc golfers (espescially those who compete) can shoot (par) at a
white level or better. Only what?, 2% of ball golfers can achieve
this.

Now, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the skill levels
(ratings) that have been chosen for the approximate representations
for the different color levels in disc golf. I'm certainly glad that
red doesn't represent a novice 700 rated players skill. My point to
this is that it is a bit misleading when we say that blue, white, and
red golf tees are not based upon professional standards. The average
golfer shoots over 100, but we don't see par 7's and 8's. Disc golf
needs to focus on what is good for disc golf, however. The skill
levels that have been chosen may be the most appropriate for this.



Next, I see that with the new course evaluation program, existing
disc golf courses are conforming to this color system, but perhaps in
an inappropriate way. Specifically, the longest course (not really
even factoring pin placements) is being considered the blue course
and shorter courses are considered white first, and red if there are
3 sets of tees.

If the skill colors are supposed to represent the corresponding
rating levels, designating all of these previously designed holes for
certain specific skill levels simply because of the pads' relation in
length with one another is going to CREATE SOME POOR(ly designed??)
HOLES. If we consider looking at scoring averages and such, it is
very well possible that a short tee would be more appropriate for a
pro than a long tee and vice versa. I'm not suggesting that we
switch the tees around and change the par for each pad. I'm just
establishing that courses which don't have design standards that
accept these levels of play for the tees are going to be considered
lacking when compared to those that do. This may be good for the
future of the sport, but perhaps not in a clear enough way. 90% of
the existing courses don't conform to the ideas about skill level/
pad color/ par that are being discussed.

Which brings up par... The Scratch Scoring Average really needs to
be a part of course evaluations and even posted at the course. If we
don't even consider the course's difficulty as a whole, how can we
consider it on an individual hole basis? We have one course who's
SSA for red is higher than a blue SSA on a different course. We say
this is ok because the red course could be considered to have more
par 4's. I want to know just how many courses have accurately
labeled par for different skill levels. This hasn't happened because
par hasn't been clearly defined and established for our sport.

My point is not that we should determine the skill level/ color of
the tees played by the SSA, but that courses need to be categorized
by SSA. Simply listing it would be effective, but coming up with a
difficulty classification system would by a very good compliment to
the skill level classification for the tees.

We already have the system for establishing SSA, which takes in hole
length, trees on the fairway, etc. This could be considered superior
to ball golf's more complicated methods of determining course ratings
and slope ratings and what not, but we have got to make use of it.
If we don't, courses will all be considered par 54, which makes
useless all of these concepts we are discussing. I would suggest
something to categorize courses by SSA -40 (1 on the ten scale of
difficulty), 41-43(2), 44-46, 47-50, 51-54, 55-58, 59-62, 63-66, 67-
70, 70+(10 out of 10). This might want to be geared towards higher
par. SSA are currently so low because courses are designed for lower
skill levels.

The SSA could easily be adjusted for other skill levels, right? Gold
SSA= what we use now. Blue SSA would add 5 strokes per round on an
equivalent lay-out. White would add ten and Red 15. Would
compression be a factor when adjusting SSA for different skill
levels? This is something that deserves some thought. If we go
through the trouble of rating courses differently from different pads
in terms of different skill levels, than each skill level at least
deserves there own course par (which hopefully will be similar to the
par for the other skill levels). Perhaps some day we will evolve to
a standard, such as ball golf's par 70-72, and get off the eternal
pitch and 2-putt thinking.



As difficult as it is to establish course pars, we are also looking
at hole par as an important part of course design. We have a big
problem to overcome in order to start setting good hole pars.

Right now, in theory, we use scoring averages to establish hole
pars. This seems to be one of the main topics of debate here. One
course might have 18 holes around 2.6 strokes per hole. Another may
have 3.4 strokes on average per hole. If you round off the holes to
make par 3 for every hole, you get 54 for each course. The SSA's for
these courses respectively are 47 and 61, almost a stroke per hole
different. This may be an extreme example, but clearly this method
isn't very accurate. This is the system that we are supporting right
now. Calling easy courses with low hole averages of 2.4 as all par
2's would make 18 of these type holes a par 36 course, which is quite
contrary to the actual SSA.

What is the solution? Set par at 3.25 or 2.5? This would obviously
bring about more trouble than the matter is possibly worth. What
would happen if the pars averaged 2.9-3.1 or 3.8-4.2? The course par
would be close to the SSA. But these holes are considered "grey"
areas or poorly designed holes with low scoring spread.

Though I am inexperienced in the field of course design, I naturally
challenge this notion. Ball golf courses offer the chance for birdie
and bogey, yet they average close to the designed par for the
professional level. Does this mean all ball golf holes are bad?

I'm suggesting that there may be a better method for determining
scoring spread than the current system (scoring average). I'll give
a couple of examples. Say one hole creates 10 scores of 2, 2, 2, 2,
3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 to give an average of 2.6. Another hole has scores
of 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4 to give an average of 3.0. Which
hole has a better design? Both holes average 60% par. One hole
offers 3 different scores, while the other just 2. If we use
standard deviation (square root of variance, and variance is the sum
of the squares of the individual differences from the mean) to
measure how good the scoring spread is, we get the following results�
A standard deviation of 1.55 for the 2.6 average hole and 2.00 for
the 3.0 average hole.

I don't know that using this method is the best way to look at
scoring spreads. It certainly isn't the quickest or easiest. It
just seems like something that should be considered. It's been said
that scoring spread doesn't determine how good a hole is by itself.
Make a pinball fairway and the scoring spread will skyrocket. But is
that type of hole fair? Fair in the sense that everyone has to play
it, but not fair considering that many good shots are punished.
Wide, open holes are the other end of the spectrum. At certain
distances, these holes get virtually no scoring spread. Somewhere in
between lies the key to good course design. Just what is a good
fairway?

There is a privately owned course in the KC area called Ted's Dread.
The course plays pro par 60 on the short settings and pro par 70 on
the longs. It creatively mixes trees, elevation, & water hazards on
the same holes. To shoot well, you have to not only be on your game,
but you have to have a strategy. The course is very fun to play and
offers excellent scoring spread without being unfair. It would be
interesting to see the course get SSA's and hole pars assigned.
These are the kind of courses the sport needs to evolve towards.

Back to ball golf and scoring averages� you don't see ball golf holes
that average 2.5 strokes per hole. The holes difficulties are not
designed however so that each hole has the field averaging exactly
par. Pro averages on a tournament quality par 3 hole might be in the
3.1-3.2 range. Pro averages for the par 5 holes might be in the 4.7-
4.8 range. This is expected for these types of holes. Over a
complete round these scoring averages offset each other and the pro
player who is playing up to but not above his/her average ability
will shoot around par for the course. There are still both birdies
and bogeys on these holes. I'm not sure how the standard deviation
compares, but it must be decent or the game wouldn't be interesting.
The greater difficulty of ball golf creates much of this sport's
scoring spread, which of course tapers off a lot with the players of
professional skill. I think ball golf's model of hole par compared
to scoring average does set a good example for disc golf. Perhaps
slightly harder par 3's and easier par 5's would work well with the
right design.



Some other thoughts to ponder�..Ball golf does have some glaring
differences. Ball golf has a definitive green area. Par considers
the appropriate number and length of shots required to reach the
green plus 2 putts. Ball golfers are expected to hole out from 8' or
less. This represents only 1% of the distance of the hole. Disc
golfers are expected to make 25' putts, up to 10% of the hole
length. If players can easily throw within this "green" range, the
hole should be considered a par 2. We need to define the green in
disc golf as the area where one averages 2 shots to the hole. Just
as fairways are hard to define in disc golf due to the nature of
using trees as obstacles in the fairway, so greens are the same. I
believe that both should use trees in the fairway with thicker trees
or rough outside the fairway. This could help define disc golf
fairways and greens. Just as trees on the fairway increase the
quality of the hole by requiring controlled drives, so does trees on
the green increase the quality by requiring controlled second shots.
Ball golfers are very attentive to what angle of putt they leave
themselves. With the green being the "par 2 zone", emphasis should
be taken off the 10 meter circle (the less than 1.5 par zone). Maybe
an area could be actually marked with rocks or something similar on
some of the longer disc golf courses with tougher greens. This would
be both interesting and novel.



In summary, what do we want for disc golf? Do we want holes that
average 3.0 & 4.0, or holes that average 2.5 and 3.5? Do we have a
contradiction here? Perhaps, not. Maybe how we judge good hole
design has more depth than just the scoring average. In situations
with wide, open golf, there may be only 2 appropriate scores for a
hole. Over-tight holes might have scores ranging from 2-7. The
balance lies in the middle. I think the optimal situation would be
having holes where a birdie or bogey is possible or even likely, yet
par for the hole is a true representation of par and the scoring
average for the respective division of play.


Here are my main points:

--- We need hole pars that accurately reflect par and offer chances
for birdie and bogey. Strategic use of trees and elevation do as
much for this cause as does the correct distance.

--- For each skill level that a course has tees for, SSA should be
posted for course to course comparison.

--- We should develop a way to classify different SSA ranges. We
should promote courses moving towards a par of 65-70. Current pro
par 54 courses might make good red par 65-70 courses.

--- Inform evaluators that assigning blue tees to the longest
configuration for the course may not be the best choice in terms of
how the quality of hole design is affected by scoring spread.

Sorry, I couldn't view my own posts for some reason, so I posted double.

Testing, 1,2,3



We read you loud and clear. Give us a few days to read your last post and we'll get back to you! ;) :D

Lets go back to this errorless play definition of par.

If sticking to that mentality, then it would be improbable if not impossible for anyone to shoot below par.

In my experience, tough but good golf holes are designed with specific landing zones and flight paths to get the player from tee to pin. Along the way are tempting high risk/reward opportunities, matched with grueling OB and hazards.

If going by errorless play, then you should add one thing. Another shot.

Figure the perfect way to play the hole, greatest drive, excellent approach shot, then an easy putt. That should be a par 4. A hole where the perfect shot off the teebox would land you at the basket...par 3. Number of shots to hole out perfectly + 1.

A birdie should be a reward for excellent play. A bogey or worse for mistakes or poor play.

This would eliminate par twos since one to the basket and one in the bucket plus one gives you three. Anyone can argue that the perfect shots off the teebox are aces, but you were not actually aiming to ace it, you were aiming for under the basket, and either it was thrown wrong or you misjudged the wind and it went in. Aces are pretty much luck, and should not be considered when designing par.

The errorless play definition allows for 2 putts for par. Errorless play + 1 putt = birdie.

"Figure the perfect way to play the hole, greatest drive, excellent approach shot, then an easy putt. That should be a par 4."

The only problem with your definition of par 4 is "easy putt". Why should players have challenges the length of the hole and then a "free throw" for birdie. Pro golfers might have a handfull of tap-ins for birdie in 72 holes. They make birdies by making uphill, downhill, sidehill putts, many with multiple breaks and the chance of three-putt very real. Why should we dummy down our putting to make or miss.

As Johnny Carrabba likes to say, "give 'em some flava!" with their putting.

You do make perfectly good sense questioning "easy putt".

But hear my rationale. On a sub 200ft approach shot through a well defined fairway or open space, a scratch player on an excellent approach shot should be able to place the disc within 20ft of the pin. And the scratch player should make a 20ft putt (wind or elevation negligent). I am a blue level player and consider anything inside 20ft easy, and expect to make most within 30ft.

This is where my easy putt comes from. However I do not disagree with you entirely.

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

... The cool thing about a par 6 is that a 3 (though only remotely possible) would be a triple birdie. Now that would be nice to have cause it is basically equivalent to an ace!


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



Wouldn't a 3 on a par 6 be BETTER than an Ace on standard Par 3?

6-3 = 3 strokes better than par
3-1 = Nick still a douchhe



another qu estion...what is a double birdy or a triple birdy....wouldnt tha t be an eagle and a double eagle :confused:

Lets go back to this errorless play definition of par.

If sticking to that mentality, then it would be improbable if not impossible for anyone to shoot below par.


I guess that's not how I read that. For example, an error in tennis is not a shot that is not a "winner". There are shots that are "winners", there is normal play, and there are shots that are "errors".

With that analogy, "winners" in disc golf help you shoot below par, while "errors" in disc golf hurt you, causing to shoot above par.

So I take the term "errorless play" to mean normal play or better. The worst "errorless play" can be is shooting exactly par. This is the threshold that many designers are trying to target when assigning par on a course.

And it's partly why I don't like using SSAs to set par, which naturally includes shots that are better than errorless play -- that is, SSAs include a lot of "winners" in their calculation. If par is set equal to the SSA, a statistically average score achieved by players rated at 1000, then par will be set at a standard that includes many winners and almost no errors.

However, if we could determine what rating a player should be which would result in a balance of winners and errors in his round, so that on average he played normally throughout the round, then I think that the average scores at that rating could be used to set par. I just think that winner/error balance does not exist for players rated 1000. People at that rating are throwing winner-winner-normal-winner-normal-winner...

Don't look now, but we finally got the PDGA Par Guidelines posted for your review. Check out this link for the updated Basic Design Guidelines: www.pdga.com/makecrse.php (http://www.pdga.com/makecrse.php) No more inflated Rec par 5s on holes over 270 feet like the older guides.

Then, download the Suggested Par Guidelines chart. These new documents have been reviewed and approved by the PDGA Course Committee.

Chuck,
While people will definitely disagree on where each "par" line should be drawn on each row of the chart, I think the chart is a great step in the right direction. I particularly like that it simply conveys useful information to those in parks departments that may not be familiar with the sport.

I'm in favor of pitching new courses to have a minimum of 2 complete sets of tees and preferably 3 or 4. This chart will be useful for explaining that concept to decision makers.

Chuck,
While people will definitely disagree on where each "par" line should be drawn on each row of the chart, I think the chart is a great step in the right direction. I particularly like that it simply conveys useful information to those in parks departments that may not be familiar with the sport.




I concur.

Looks good. Chuck, would you say that, where known, WCP should be used rather than this chart?

It is interesting to see that Par 2s are only a fraction of the total chart and also only found in the Gold and Blue sections at all.

What are your feelings concerning holes with an SSA of say 2.40? Is it ok to call them easy par 3s?

The par chart was determined using a combination of estimated scoring averages and adjusted lengths for different skill levels. However, it's only a guide. Remember that over 95% of the pars on courses were likely not set with any statistical backup, and that only comes later after courses are played in leagues or events. Even then, how those stats were used might not have been normalized to a particular skill level. This chart will provide a good foundation to get novice designers and park people on the right track and provide a reference for everyone to start speaking the same lingo.

When hole lengths fall near the break points between par 3 and par 4, I don't think it makes any difference what mathematical process is used to select par 3 versus par 4. Frankly, I would look at whether more holes had been rounded up or down on the whole course and whether I felt a hard 3 or easy 4 would be better at this point in the course routing. So my choice would be done more from a psychological standpoint than math.

If only one hole is a 2.4 average for the intended skill level for the course, I'd pretend that other factors are more important than that and set the par at 3. Then, I might look at ways to tweak the hole to toughen it up a little. In some cases, just making something OB for tournaments only might boost it to 2.5, and let it remain at 2.4 for daily play. That happens lots of places where paths are OB only for events.

Nice job Chuck!

This chart is going to help a lot of people that are new to course design. Keep it coming!

...I think the 3-1 ratio comes from casual conversations that disc golfers have to people who have never heard of our sport...



I can tell you exactly where the 3:1 ratio came from since I introduced it. In the Close Range (CR) Par method the length of a close range shot for a Gold level player is 120 ft. This length is 0.33 x 360 ft. One part of the concept of CR Par is that "close range" corresponds to reaching the front of the green in ball golf, NOT to reaching the hole itself. The 120 ft. length was translated to an equivalent length in ball golf which I determined to be 40 ft. putt for a scratch player. ALthough BG greens vary quite a bit I thought a 40 ft. putt from the front edge was a common length. Both of these lengths are distances from which a scratch player in each sport would finish the hole in 2 shots about 98% of the time. Thus the ratio of 120:40 or 3:1. I also thought that a 10 ft. ball golf putt was equivalent to a 30 ft. DG putt in that an expert player would make them about 95% of the time. So the ratio of 3 to 1 was not empirically derived, but I derived it through the process just described. I hope this makes sense.

Lowe

Putts from 10 ft. are made less than 50% of the time for golf pros. The relationship between the two isn't linear. I do think, however that the 120 ft. guideline for "on the green" is reasonable.

The SA par method is superior for DG partly because par 2s will be uncovered,�The BG and CR methods continue to disguise holes as par 3s that are weak with too many 2s being scored on them. With the SA method these holes are exposed so they can be changed and improved. Again, you can't or won't make the effort to improve holes if it doesn't appear there's a problem.



Chuck,

There is some truth in what you say, because every method of determining par has advantages and disadvantages. But I don't think that this is that big of a problem with the CR Par method. We just need to acknowledge that par and SSA have different functions. I'm certainly not suggesting that SSA data is not useful in many ways, because it obviously is. All we need to do is to use SSA data together with par and then we can still easily identify holes that are too easy and need to be changed. As holes with an SSA of 2.5 or lower are identified they are still clearly candidates for improvement. In fact, I think that if a consistent par standard is used then SSA minus par is a good indicator of a hole�s difficulty. A positive value shows a difficult hole while a negative value shows holes that are easy.


The other issue with BG and CR methods is that separate guidelines for driving and putting must somehow be determined for four different skill levels. The nature of "two close shots" is different for Gold versus Red level. With the Scoring Average method, it doesn't make any difference whether the shots are drives, approaches or putts. So the process automatically accounts for different skill levels for all shots combined.



These other lengths have already been calculated. They were easily derived from the factors relating the Gold level to the Blue, White, and Red levels on the chart �Estimated Hole Scoring Averages for each Ratings Range based on Hole Length�. Here are the numbers (they were also posted a while ago on the �What is Par?� thread):

Close Range Par
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>Blue</td><td>100</td><td>410 (310 + 100)</td><td>685 (410 + 275)</td><td>960 (685 + 275)</td><td>1235 (960 + 275)
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>90</td><td>360 (270 + 90)</td><td>585 (360 + 225)</td><td>810 (585 + 225)</td><td>1035 (810 +225)
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>75</td><td>305 (230 + 75)</td><td>490 (305 +185)</td><td>675 (490 + 185)</td><td>860 (675 + 185)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

BG Par
using the PDGA Design guidelines chart. Max effective length for par with Avg foliage (factor 5)
<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>none</td><td>360</td><td>680 (360 + 320)</td><td>1000 (680 + 320)</td><td>1320 (1000 + 320)
</td></tr><tr><td>Blue</td><td>none</td><td>310</td><td>585 (310 + 275)</td><td>860 (585 + 275)</td><td>1135 (860 + 275)
</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>none</td><td>270</td><td>495 (270 + 225)</td><td>720 (495 + 225)</td><td>945 (720 + 225)
</td></tr><tr><td>Red</td><td>none</td><td>230</td><td>415 (230 + 185)</td><td>600 (415 + 185)</td><td>785 (415 + 185)
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

All of this may be true but I still think that every golf hole should have an eagle,birdie, and a par therefore eliminating this whole thread about par 2's .:D

Most of the lengths in those CR and BG tables are suspect because they are mathematically derived and not necessarily connected to the "real" stats for players of that level. No one has done the legwork to confirm driving, putting or "close throw" stats for color skill levels, just driving distances in 2002 by division. So, CR and BG are just math exercises without verification, and wishful thinking for those who cling to the flawed ball golf par/course rating model which has been (innocently) misapplied to disc golf.

Only scoring averages of actual players playing the holes truly takes all elements into account. And further, the SA model has been able to accurately forecast actual total scores not only for new courses that have yet to be played in competition, but actual holes. The SA process still doesn't make the final call on setting par because other elements may supersede pure averages for setting par on a specific hole. The SA process just provides an internally consistent starting point that can be verified in the field.

On the validity of eagles being some mythical requirement for proper par, how do you eagle a miniature golf hole that is listed as a par 2? I'd say it would be hard to argue that disc golf was closer to ball golf than miniature golf is to ball golf. Par 2s have already been formally listed for courses used in a few Pro Worlds. That's partly because we're forced to use several Blue level courses for Gold level competition. Ideally, we would be able to use Gold level courses or configurations for Pro Worlds, but that may not be the case for many years to come.

I don't see any good reason why we cannot have pro worlds courses (at least for open & masters) play entirely at the gold level. I think we've taken good action by having guys like John Houck preview worlds courses and make recommendations. The same goes for am worlds being played at the blue level for advanced.

As to using scoring averages to set par: I don't think it's necessary. I think a good designer can evaluate a hole and predict within 1/3 a stroke what the scoring average will be on that hole for a defined sample of players under normal playing conditions. If a designer would choose to make a layout and then have an event played to evaluate the data and "set" the pars, I would ask: what parameters should be used to insure that the sample data is appropriate for the color designation. For instance all open players at a one-day C-tier will give significantly different data than all cashing pros at Major.

I still think it's very useful to examine score spreads after a big event and make tweaks for the next event.

Lowe mentioned that you could use Hole Scratch Scoring Average subtracted from the assigned par of a given hole to see if it is too easy or too hard. This was most of what I was rambling on in my overlong post.

I don't think we should try to make holes with SA's that are between whole numbers (2.5) as opposed to close to the numbers. If we have SA's that are close to the assigned par, then the total course SSA will be close to the par for the course. In cases where par is rounded from the SAs that are not close to whole numbers, large adjustments need to be made if the hole pars are going to add up to the SSA or WCP.

I know we want to get a good scoring spread on a hole, yet want to be fair. Here's my idea for an ideal golf hole...

Let's say the hole is a par 4. The fairway is fairly wide, but has many large trees that offer several different flight paths to chose from with risk/reward involved with each. At the edge of the fairway on both sides the trees are closer together and much more difficult (but not impossible) to negotiate. After a drive that has succesfully reach a good landing area, a full mid-range shot is required to reach the green. Elevation is a very important aspect to every part of the hole, but espescially on and around the green. The green has got to be tricky to build the strategy element. The green should also be like the fairway in that there are trees on it, but more around it (to punish bad shots, not to deflect them back towards the green). While we need trees in the fairways to encourage certain shots, more trees off the fairways and greens helps to give them visual definition.

With this kind of hole, even if the average score is around 4.0, you are going to see scores from 3-6. If it was lengthened or shortened to average 3.5 or 4.5 would the scoring spread really improve or decrease? My thinking is that you would see only two main scores for the hole instead of 3. When you have a wide open hole, however, I would agree that certain distances give you poor scoring spreads and these are identified by SA's around whole numbers.


The talk of Par 2's and close range par methods has made me think about what exactly a disc golf green is. Ball golf greens are generally surfaces that average 2 putts in expert play.

In disc golf we think of the 10 meter circle as the green. This obviously isn't the case. If we want to look at it like ball golf, we would take the distance that players average 2 shots from and add some to make up for the area that players average less than 2 shots. Does this make sense? If a pro level averages 2 shots in an average foliage green from 120 feet, you might add 15 feet to that to make up for the 30 foot circle in the middle where the pro averages closer to 1 shot.

Par should be the number of errorless shots required to reach the green plus 2 shots. If this is the only way you evaluated a hole, however, there will obviously be problems. Say a decent drive puts a player 20 feet off the green. Does that make a good par 4? It might make a good par 3.5. Encouraging holes that average between whole numbers seems to be contrary with the philosophy of par (birdies AND bogeys).

The key difference between ball golf and disc golf putting math is that shots "around the green" (ATG) in BG are 2.1 and in DG it's 1.7 at the elite level, almost a half shot different. If DG putting were made tougher, then the ball golf par definition would make more sense for DG. But that's not the case at the moment. The more open a hole, the more important hole lengths are so the scoring average is not near a round number. With wooded holes, it's relatively easy to get decent scoring spread within a wider range of lengths. So, designing for round number scoring averages works well with a balanced percentage of birdies and bogeys.

Glad you agree, Chuck. I was looking at the more detailed of the par for skill, distance, foliage chart and noticed "grey" areas around the whole numbers. As long as the holes have enough challenge, such as foliage, OB, elevation, etc. the coefficient of variance should be just as large on the holes with SA near whole numbers.

I'm curious where you get the figure for 1.7 putts average on a disc golf green. Is the green your considering 120' for pro like I've seen mentioned? Shouldn't the green be made larger to make up for the relatively large 1-putt zone? I think the answer is to put more trees on the green and definitely more elevation. Safe, smart play should be rewarded.

As to using scoring averages to set par: I don't think it's necessary. I think a good designer can evaluate a hole and predict within 1/3 a stroke what the scoring average will be on that hole for a defined sample of players under normal playing conditions.

What about existing courses? This data would be most useful in reevalutating the par of established courses, particularly courses where sanctioned events have been contested.

As to using scoring averages to set par: I don't think it's necessary. I think a good designer can evaluate a hole and predict within 1/3 a stroke what the scoring average will be on that hole for a defined sample of players under normal playing conditions.


What about existing courses? This data would be most useful in reevaluating par (or redesign) for established courses, particularly courses which have previously contested sanctioned events.

The Course Rating formulas for scratch players derived for 18-hole courses in each sport based on actual scoring data are

Disc Golf: SSA = 30 + (course length / CF) where CF is Challenge Factor, primarily foliage. Average foliage has a CF of 285.

Ball Golf: Course Rating = 42 + (Course length / 220) where length is in yards.
In both formulas, length should first be adjusted for elevation.

The first item in each formula (30 & 42) is a constant for all courses that indicates shots "Around the green" not just putts. If you divide those constants by 18, you get 1.7 for DG and 2.1 for BG.

BTW, all people need is the SSA for one layout and they can calculate the SSA for all other pin placement combinations from that set of tees. Use the formula above to calculate the CF for that course. Once that is known, plug the CF in the formula along with the course length for a different combination of pins and calculate the SSA for this layout.

So, even though a course like Vista del Camino in Phoenix has up to 5 pin placements on some holes, all you need is the SSA from one event for a layout of known length. Then, the SSA for any of the thousands of other pin combinations can be calculated once the CF is known. Actually, the CF factor should eventually be calculated for each course and included in the Course Directory. We're already doing that in the Course Index provided by Disc Golf United: www.discgolfunited.com (http://www.discgolfunited.com)

What about existing courses? This data would be most useful in reevaluating par (or redesign) for established courses, particularly courses which have previously contested sanctioned events.


Agreed, that's when the tweakage comes in.

Par 2s have already been formally listed for courses used in a few Pro Worlds. That's partly because we're forced to use several Blue level courses for Gold level competition. Ideally, we would be able to use Gold level courses or configurations for Pro Worlds, but that may not be the case for many years to come.


Who's forcing us to use Blue level courses for Pro Worlds? Was that slipped into the Patriot Act too?

I've been wrong in the past, and maybe I'm wrong about this too, but right now I cannot believe that this is true.

On one hand we're all wishing for the sponsor fairy to visit us in the middle of the winter, while on the other hand we're admitting that our best players in the world championship will play some of their rounds on courses that are at the level for top amateurs.

You play the courses available in a community that is willing to step up and host the Pro Worlds. About half the time, the PDGA has had to persuade potential locations to host the Pro Worlds because it's been a losing proposition relative to the Am Worlds. Very few communities have a Gold caliber course (that's a good thing) and not every Blue level (or below) course can be upgraded to a full Gold level challenge. At least four courses have been needed which makes it even tougher.

Even Des Moines, with all of its courses could barely pull together four courses at Gold level. However, due to the compromises of a Pro/Am Worlds, the Pros won't get to play only the Gold level ones because the challenging courses are used for everyone attending. Allentown perhaps has come the closest to Gold level on four courses. But some holes still needed some work and I don't believe there was a cement tee pad in sight.

Lowe mentioned that you could use Hole Scratch Scoring Average subtracted from the assigned par of a given hole to see if it is too easy or too hard...



Just a small correction: I actually said SSA minus Par which is the opposite of what you said here (Par minus SSA).

How close will the Augusta courses be to Gold?

How many rubber tees does the PDGA have? Is it too much to ask that they provide them as needed to insure a Golden Worlds?

So, CR and BG are just math exercises without verification, and wishful thinking for those who cling to the flawed ball golf par/course rating model which has been (innocently) misapplied to disc golf...



Poor John Houck, Harold Duvall, Dave Dunipace, David Greenwell, and Stan McDaniel. Someone needs to tell them that as proponents of the BG Par model they still cling to the flawed ball golf par model which has been (innocently) misapplied to disc golf. Hopefully they will see the error of their ways.

How close will the Augusta Worlds courses be to Gold?
Too early to tell. Pete's Hippodrome course will be Gold. Riverview and Lake Olmstead are Blue/Gold right now and will be tweaked. Pendleton King is Blue but will also be tweaked. So, it will get close to four Gold but likely with some holes under 2.5 scoring average for Gold players.

How many rubber tees does the PDGA have?
None, but it hasn't been a problem to get them when needed for Worlds.

Poor John Houck, Harold Duvall, Dave Dunipace, David Greenwell, and Stan McDaniel. Someone needs to tell them that as proponents of the BG Par model they still cling to the flawed ball golf par model which has been (innocently) misapplied to disc golf. Hopefully they will see the error of their ways.




Just like the Emperor thought he had clothes, some cling to beliefs the way they would like it to be (wishful thinking) despite evidence to the contrary. They're not the first and won't be the last. If the powers that be are willing to change our basket to make putting tougher by almost a half throw, their wishes can be granted and I'll lead the parade.

The key difference between ball golf and disc golf putting math is that shots "around the green" (ATG) in BG are 2.1 and in DG it's 1.7 at the elite level, almost a half shot different. If DG putting were made tougher, then the ball golf par definition would make more sense for DG. But that's not the case at the moment. ...



Chuck,

What is the length of shots used in the ATG factor? Is it 10 meters? What if the concept of the "green" was lengthened to accomodate the reality of the difference in putting in DG? I've never even seen a DG green with only a 30 ft. radius from the hole. That would be tiny even in BG.

One of the core factors in the CR Par method is an attempt to take the 1.67 ATG factor and the difference in DG putting into account. That is why "close range" is defined as 0.33 times the standard drive length. Another way to look at CR Par is that a maximum length par 3 is 1.33 throws plus 1.67 throws to hole out. This seems to me to take into account the difference in putting in DG. What do you think?

What is the length of shots used in the ATG factor? Is it 10 meters?



It's unknown just like BG. All it says is 1.67 is the number of throws on average that occur near the basket on each hole that have nothing to do with the length of the hole. Likewise, in BG there are 2.1 shots around the green on average per hole regardless of the size of the green.

Another important aspect about the 1.67 factor is that it was determined from almost 500 rounds on courses of all types and SSAs with pools of propagators with a wide range of average ratings. So, it's quite possible the true factor for Gold level may be closer to 1.5-1.6. But we haven't done enough analysis to see whether that's the case.

How close will the Augusta Worlds courses be to Gold?
Too early to tell. Pete's Hippodrome course will be Gold. Riverview and Lake Olmstead are Blue/Gold right now and will be tweaked. Pendleton King is Blue but will also be tweaked. So, it will get close to four Gold but likely with some holes under 2.5 scoring average for Gold players.




Thanks, Chuck. Hopefully I'll be able to play in the tournament.

Why isn't the NDGC North course being used for regular worlds play?

Why isn't the NDGC North course being used for regular worlds play?

It's unclear whether it will be ready by then. All the other four courses are close to each other and the North course is about a half hour away. Both rounds of Mixed Doubles will be on the North course if it's ready, so no travel between rounds would be needed. In addition, it's a Blue & Red level course so it might be less suitable for the Open division than the other courses being tweaked for Gold. The South and East courses will have Gold tees but the East course is likely a year away and the South even longer.

Wasnt the pro worlds supposed to be at the NDGC?
How did Augusta get the worlds?
I think St Louis is just about ready for pro Worlds, but we would like to run an am worlds first or maybe both at the same time like Iowa and Michigan.
We would need a lot of help from the pdga.

NDGC will likely not be ready for a Worlds until 2008 at the earliest.

Am and Pro Worlds are still available for 2008. There's a tentative but unannounced potential site for AM 2009.

Am and Pro Worlds are still available for 2008. There's a tentative but unannounced potential site for AM 2009.



Gee, I wonder where you might be talking about? Is it Alaska? Montana? Um, I am a bit perplexed.

Par analysis for remaining Nockamixon holes.

I can easily see the Course Pro setting the par at 52 considering moving the par 2 to a 3 and that 18 plays like a par 4.

Course Par Discussion (http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/Course Par Discussion.html)

I wonder if CR Par comes up with similar numbers.

I do think that we are getting somewhere.

I think St Louis is just about ready for pro Worlds, but we would like to run an am worlds first or maybe both at the same time like Iowa and Michigan.
We would need a lot of help from the pdga.


Dave,
If you get a worlds in '08, I'll come out and help for 2 weeks.

Par analysis for remaining Nockamixon holes...
I wonder if CR Par comes up with similar numbers.



Here are the CR Par numbers based on the info from the URL above:

<table border="1"><tr><td>Hole</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>Front</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><td>Back</td><td>Total
</td></tr><tr><td>Length</td><td>520</td><td>420</td><td>516</td><td>243</td><td>669</td><td>300</td><td>393</td><td>486</td><td>714</td><td>4261</td><td>816</td><td>477</td><td>252</td><td>558</td><td>312</td><td>450</td><td>393</td><td>552</td><td>384</td><td>4194</td><td>8455
</td></tr><tr><td>Elevation Diff. (ft)</td><td>-3</td><td>+12</td><td>-5</td><td>+4</td><td>+10</td><td>-15</td><td>-35</td><td>+30</td><td>-35</td><td>-37</td><td>-12</td><td>+5</td><td>+26</td><td>-10</td><td>-23</td><td>+30</td><td>-25</td><td>-25</td><td>+10</td><td>-24</td><td>-61
</td></tr><tr><td>Effective Length</td><td>511</td><td>456</td><td>501</td><td>255</td><td>699</td><td>255</td><td>288</td><td>576</td><td>609</td><td>4150</td><td>780</td><td>492</td><td>330</td><td>528</td><td>243</td><td>540</td><td>318</td><td>477</td><td>414</td><td>4122</td><td>8272
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold CR Par</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>32</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>31</td><td>63
</td></tr><tr><td>Gold BG Par</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>34</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>34</td><td>68
</td></tr><tr><td>New PDGA (SA) Par</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>32</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>WCP</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>32</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>
Holes on the border line always need to be looked at closely and can go either way based on several factors. So for CR Par:
#2 could be 3 or 4 (par 3 up to 480)
#10 could be 4 or 5 (par 5 starts at 800)
#11 could be 4 or 3 (it's so close to 480)
#17 could be 3 or 4 (it's so close to 480)

What do you think of these numbers?

Lowe

The effective length value is misleading on several of the holes that are doglegs. Holes 3, 10, 15 and 17 have significant dog breaks that extend their true effective lengths.

The effective length value is misleading on several of the holes that are doglegs. Holes 3, 10, 15 and 17 have significant dog breaks that extend their true effective lengths.



I asked Nick for further information on this issue as well as other factors, so hopefully he will be able to supply it before long.

Lowe,

As a golfer who plays Nocky regularly, the current par for the 14 holes is 52. #2 is a 4, #10 is easily a 5, #11 is a 4 & #17 is a 4. Any debate about this is moot unless you have played the course. Numbers can be your guide, but that's about it. :cool:

Lowe,

As a golfer who plays Nocky regularly, the current par for the 14 holes is 52. #2 is a 4, #10 is easily a 5, #11 is a 4 & #17 is a 4. Any debate about this is moot unless you have played the course. Numbers can be your guide, but that's about it. :cool:



I totally agree with you, that's why I listed several holes that could go more than one way. I only took the time to put the numbers together for CR Par because Nick requested it.

When you use the word "par" what method of par do you use to come up with the numbers you gave?

We used data from previous events as well as the opinion of the masses. For instance, Hole #5 was originally a par 5, but as we played it more often we noted a 3 could be attained fairly regularly, thus we bumped back to a par 4, a hard par 4 by the way.

We used the data as a guideline but it's not always the only answer to par. What did the early pioneers of BG use? I'm sure they used a very personal analysis or a committee to get to par for a particular hole.

But let me state I do not believe in Par 2 holes. It's a easy Par 3 or a Hard Par 3. :cool:

But let me state I do not believe in Par 2 holes. It's a easy Par 3 or a Hard Par 3.



It's the OP method... (Ostrich Par) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BTW, hole 12 is a par 3, especially in the Worlds config with OB on the right.

I will try to get the necessary data to Lowe by tonight. Matt could just as easily supply it though.

I play Nocky as often as I am able, and I do beleive that the Par the course designer, Kevin, uses is nearly dead on. SSA, WCP, and now the new PDGA Par Standard are, in my view, just tools (very good ones) to assist the course pro in making the final call on pars for their holes and course. If a course has a par that is completely off it quickly becomes apparent. (ie normal tees at Rutgers being considered all par 3s with a course par of 54. Shooting a par at Rutgers of 54 and shooting a par of 68 at Nockamixon makes this truth precisely and conclusively clear to most folks; one of the reasons a PDGA PAR Standard that includes par 2s (for Gold and Blue skill levels) is necessary).

Has everyone seen that document? The new PDGA Par Standards?

ostrich par? how about "par 2" and a non-existent, ostrich birdie? this is all an exercise in definition. we have never looked at par as an average. we've always thought of par in relative terms to birdie, bogey, etc. some holes yield a greater percentage of bogeys to birdies than others...relative difficulty. i believe ssa changes a common understanding of par, not the dictionary definition, but how it is perceived generally with regard to birdie and bogey, etc. i feel the ssa camp, by using the term par, is like christianity co-opting the pagan holidays.

mostly, the averages hide valuable information. how the average is derived is important to a designer. nick always says that hole 10 is a par 6 because of the average scores however the hole is most often 5ed. should a birdie be the most common score on a hole? does it now magically become an easy par? should a theoretical par 2 have a virtual 0 possibility of a birdie? how you answer these questions tells you how you think of golf par. average is also deceiving in that it is easy to get a 12 on the hole, not so easy to get a 1 or a 2. the data is skewed to the high side. just some thoughts. the discussion good.

design with birdie in mind, not par.

Those who deny the existence of par 2s believe in Ostrich Par. I'm not saying par 2s are good, they are just poor par 3 holes. Or more likely, pars on the whole course need to be reset for a lower skill level to eliminate the par 2s that way. Fortunately Nocka doesn't have any par 2s and is designed appropriately for the Gold level player.

SSA is not a method for determining par without additional study as Kevin points out, especially when significant OB is involved. And SSA is only for Gold course analysis and there are few of those. Scoring averages are the starting point for determining par if you have them, but most of the time you don't when setting up a new course. Fortunately, there are charts using length adjustments that can get you a first pass at par. Setting par is not one method but a process of several elements as more information becomes available.

As far as using the most common score such as 5s on Nocka #10 to set par, that can get you into trouble also. The most common score on hole #17 on Winthrop Gold is a 2. However, the average score is close to 3 because of the OB penalty off the tee. I know Harold prefers the scoring average method versus "most common score" to set par on this hole.

Nocka #10 should be a par 5 hole but it's still in development. It plays with a higher average due to some trees that still need to come out to truly make it a first class hole. But we understand the difficulty of taking out more of them on courses in general and especially one where the situtation is touchy now that 1-4 have been removed.

i guess some people are happy with a hole rarely if ever being "birdied." that makes me uncomfortable for some reason. selah.

actually, the removal of the holes at nocky could be a blessing in disguise. the park has reacted very favorably to the course recently. stay tuned for 4 better holes.

just leave alone the "shots around the green" stuff for a moment. think about a hole 700 feet slightly uphill. birdie or flawless play is a three. great drive, great up, putt. par 4. the ssa is a great tool to figure out birdie on a hole...then add one.

par is birdie plus one. not necessarily a missed putt, but a missed fairway, a tree smack etc. putting is easier in disc golf, but the other shots ain't. have you seen ball golf fairways? now compare those to nocky for example.

Thanks for your input Kevin, I know the new 4 holes will add more challenge to Nocky and make the course a complete humbling experience. :cool:

Chuck we can agree to disagree about par 2 holes, yes stats can indicate that a hole is a must get 2, but what's the % of a gold level player duecing the hole? 100%? Doubt it, more likely 50-75%. I know when I do not get a 2 on #8 at Tinicum, it feels like I let one get away but why should it be a par 2? It is not totally open and has a low ceiling. I will now put my head back in the sand :D

Kev, seriously, how do you reconcile a course like Sedgley Blues par being 54, with Nockamixons being 68 (or so)?

If I shoot a 54 at Sedgley am I going to believe in any way shape or form (other than old thinkin') that I have really shot par. The SSA for that course is like 42!?! I'm going to feel like I shot an 80 at Nockamixon, and that is about as close to a bat to the back of the head as I ever want to get, and certainly not par. If I shoot a 68 at Nocky, I feel like I have played very near a mistake free round.

I know you are focused on how this effects your course, it is only natural. But the par standard we are trying to develop is one that will work on any course anywhere. From pitch and putt to monster courses.

The reality is that holes that average below 2.5 for scratch golfers playing in PDGAs are the same as holes that average 3, 4, or whatever, because all the player cares about is getting the lowest possible score (period).

The real use of "Par" is for a long and important list of other purposes, mainly having to do with the promotion of disc golf; in the form of logical meaning to mass media, potential sponsors, potential new players via leagues etc. Making all holes that average below 2.5 par 3s is in direct conflict with those purposes.

Consider your standards for "Expert Golfer", "Driving Averages", "Approach Shot Averages", " Putting Averages". What are they based on? Can that be uniformly reproduced everywhere?

Perhaps this is of little use to you, I don't know, but there can be no doubt that it would be of significant use to others in the disc golf community, present and future.

Things like "easy 3s" and "hard 5s" have no transferable meanings. They are useless in providing fair and meaningful pars for rules and handicap play.

What is your solution for courses that have SSAs well below 54? How can players there understand how they are shooting in relation to par? Not a meaningless par, but a par that has uniform meaning and application at every course everywhere in the world?

Matt, I'm not sure we disagree other than you see a par 2 and choose to not acknowledge its existence. I see the same one and just say it's a par 2 that either needs to be fixed so it's a decent par 3 or change the skill standard by which the hole is measured so it's a par 3. Either way, no par 2s. I would prefer NOT to see par 2s on a tee signs anywhere. But if a designer claims a course is intended for Gold level players and several holes have scoring averages under 2.5 AND can't be changed, then either the holes should be marked par 2s or the course should simply be relabeled as a Blue level course.

The only place I can see using the par 2 identification is, strangely enough, Pro Worlds. It's not because I want to see them. But the reality, which I posted about earlier, is that sometimes non-Gold level courses, that can't be temporarily changed, sometimes must be used for Pro Worlds. The par 2s would only be identified on a list of hole pars for players and course directors so they know which ones are not par 3s when late penalties need to be assessed.

So Chuck you're saying the only need for par 2's is to identify them for players that show up late? I'd buy that. As long as the tee sign says a par 3, no problem.

Like I said, the only place I would want to see par 2s on tee signs would be on a course where a stubborn designer (not many of those anyway :D) insists his/her course is for Gold (or Blue) level play but the evidence on several holes is that they average around 2.2-2.4. Frankly, I don't see that combination of elements happening but that's the circumstance I would want to see them, more or less as a customer alert issue.

I did try to backtrack and find the info, I swear, but what happended to four holes at Nockamixon? Which holes and why?

In my research, I see the par debate is still alive. I assume that someone decreed that par 2s exist? Chuck, can't we take a survey and let the membership decide? :p

This debate is the opposite of the religious one on intelligent design versus evolution. In our case, our evolutionists have faith in ball golf traditions evolving into disc golf, also with no par 2s and two shots on the green. Our intelligent design group uses scientific testing to show that some holes have scoring averages less than 2.5 that should be rounded down to par 2s and that elite players only average 1.5 shots on the green which undermines the ball golf basis of par for our sport. Disc golf needs its own approach based on the measured differences between our two sports.

This debate is the opposite of the religious one on intelligent design versus evolution. In our case, our evolutionists have faith in ball golf traditions evolving into disc golf, also with no par 2s and two shots on the green. Our intelligent design group uses scientific testing to show that some holes have scoring averages less than 2.5 that should be rounded down to par 2s and that elite players only average 1.5 shots on the green which undermines the ball golf basis of par for our sport. Disc golf needs its own approach based on the measured differences between our two sports.

I want a poll and you can only vote once!!!!! :D

I play Nocky as often as I am able, and I do beleive that the Par the course designer, Kevin, uses is nearly dead on.



Is dscmm (Kevin Laboski) the same Kevin who is the Course designer?

So Chuck you're saying the only need for par 2's is to identify them for players that show up late? I'd buy that. As long as the tee sign says a par 3, no problem.



I think there are also other reasons why a universal standard for par is needed. I also think that we need something more than saying that every course pro or course designer can decide their own standard or definition of par. That makes the terms "par, birdie, and bogey" basically meaningless and useless since they can have so many meanings. (This is our current state of affairs, IMO.) Can you imagine the chaos in ball golf if every course had its own standard for par? You could never compare 2 courses using par. The "portability error" would be so enormous that handicaps would be impossible.

Here are some reasons why DG needs a consistent and universal standard for par:

1. In tournaments when a player is late you need the par for a hole to know what penalty score to give that player. (The penalty is par + 4 for missed holes.)
2. For tournaments a consistent standard allows over/under scoring for spectators and the potential TV audience. A reason to have a hole by hole par established is to compare golfers on different holes. Climo is shooting -7 and Schultz -6 but Climo has played 2 more holes is easier (especially to TV viewers) than saying Climo is at 43 after 17 holes while Shultz is at 37 after 15
3. So that players can judge their progress by comparison to a consistent standard for what an expert player can expect to score on a hole. This acknowledges the reality of par 2, 4, 5 and even par 6 holes.
3.1. One of the first questions that most new players ask is �What is par on this hole?� We should be able to give them a consistent and universally accepted answer.
4. It is easier to keep track of scores in relation to par than by the total numerical value. This is why most players report their score as �6 down� rather than �48�.
5. The reality of disc golf being a golf type game is that the terms �par�, �under par�, �bogey� and �birdie� naturally accompany the sport. It would be strange to have a sport with the word �golf� in it that doesn�t use these terms. If we�re going to use the term �par� then it should have a standard method of determining it.
6. In tournaments such as Worlds with multiple courses you need par to be able to compare players in different pools playing different courses.
7. Par is an important factor for comparing the difficulty of different courses. Otherwise there is an insurmountable �portability error�.
8. Expectations of par affect your mental outlook and your performance. This especially comes into play when you play a new course. If Renaissance Gold is a par 54 then it's insanely hard, but if it's par 70 then it's not as tough. If you think you should take a 3 on a 1000 ft. hole then you will try way too hard, but if you accept that it is a par 5 you can relax and pace yourself.
9. If the term �par� is defined in a multitude of ways by many different people then the term loses its meaning, so it becomes worthless along with the related terms such as �birdie, bogie��.
10. To be able to determine handicaps.

This debate is the opposite of the religious one on intelligent design versus evolution. In our case, our evolutionists have faith in ball golf traditions evolving into disc golf, also with no par 2s and two shots on the green. Our intelligent design group uses scientific testing to show that some holes have scoring averages less than 2.5 that should be rounded down to par 2s and that elite players only average 1.5 shots on the green which undermines the ball golf basis of par for our sport. Disc golf needs its own approach based on the measured differences between our two sports.



Chuck,

Although I chuckled at your analogy I don't think that ad hominem argumentation will advance the dialogue. (We may need to start calling you the "Intelligent Designer", though./msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

The DGCD is far from monolithic in it's view on par. I believe that the other designers in the group are also intelligent and skilled. When I see that John Houck, Harold Duvall, Dave Dunipace, Stan McDaniel, David Greenwell, (and Lowe Bibby :cool:) disagree with you I think this shows that there are still other valid opinions out there.

I wonder if the core of the problem is not a difference in skill or intelligence or access to facts, but a difference in perspective. It's a different way to conceptualize the idea of par. SA Par believes that scoring averages are the most important. BG and CR Par believe that how an expert plays the hole in errorless play is most important. This difference is hard to put into words, so maybe someone else can do better than I can.

Maybe one more example might help. Imagine a very difficult hole that 49 out of 50 "expert" players will score a 4 or more on. And lets just say that it has a scoring average of 4.2 because it's long, has a very narrow fairway guarded by a corridor of thick foliage, and lots of OB. There is still a very narrow and fairway, though, that can be hit. But if the hole is played without errors then 1 out of 50 expert players will take a 3 on it. Is this hole a par 3 or a par 4?

SA Par proponents look at this as a no-brainer and say it's obviously a par 4.

BG Par proponents say that if the expert can reach the basket with 1 errorless throw (effective length of 360 ft. or less) then it is a par 3. They don't care about averages and that only 1 out of 50 experts will do this.

CR Par proponents say that if the expert can score a 3 after a drive, a close range shot, and a putt, then it is a par 3. They also don't care if only 1 out of 50 experts will do this. If even 1 player can do it then it is a par 3.

It all depends on how you look at the concept of par. WHat do you think?

AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

had to do it........my mind is in overload right now

though, this is all FANTASTIC discussion.

The PDGA view of par, which is now posted and includes the vote of several designers mentioned, is that all of the three approaches are valid. The most important aspect is not what method is used to get to a par value but that the value is based on the skill level of the player a hole is designed for: Gold, Blue, White, or Red. If anything is new to players, it's the concept that each set of tees should be designed for a skill level and the par set according to their level.

What I object to is that only the non-scientific par versions be used without reference to actual data that may come later. Some of those designers like Harold will use the data to modify the holes or par when confronted with the evidence. No one can fully use the SA par method until they have data. And even those like myself who use it, don't follow it precisely because it's only one large piece of the puzzle.

SA purists would say a hole averaging 3.4 should be a par 3. I say it depends. Frankly, I think holes with scoring averages between 3.33 and 3.67 are fair game to go either way based on factors that have nothing to do with numbers. If I feel the course needs a really easy par 4 and the hole lends itself to that approach, I might set the par at 4 for a hole with a 3.4 scoring average. Likewise, if I have too many holes in the 3.6 to 3.8 range, it's possible I'll pick the easiest of the bunch and make it a tough par 3 so it has a different feel than the other holes in the same scoring range.

I guess my point is that I prefer to use all of the tools available for setting par and not be trapped in a ball golf mindset. Our sport is different enough from ball golf with its own metrics. We should borrow and adapt things from BG but not just blindly use their processes because they're our big brother who has been around a few hundred years longer.

Can you imagine the chaos in ball golf if every course had its own standard for par? You could never compare 2 courses using par. The "portability error" would be so enormous that handicaps would be impossible.


Courses do vary in their difficulty relative to par. That's why handicaps are adjusted with the slope factor to make them portable.

I agree with your list of reasons that par is important.

I do think that, while par in disc golf isn't as clear cut as in ball golf, par comes first and then statistical analysis. While there is certainly room for disagreement amongst designers' decisions to call a hole a certain par that decision IS par until the designer decides or is coerced to change it.

Over time some pars will change, just as many 500 yd. golf holes have changed from par 5 to par 4. For instance, a disc golf hole may have a small window 400 ft. "hero" shot to the basket or a 250 ft. shot to a landing area and a 225 ft. tunnel shot to the basket. The designer may have initially thought that many players would hit the hero shot to the green, but maybe it turns out that only 3 in 10 go that route and only 1 makes it. That hole, which was initially thought to be a par 3, has definitely been proven to be a par 4.

With whatever method of determining par is used there will always be some "tweaners". If the natural landscape presents a hole that separates scores based on skill rather than luck, has great beauty, and works well with the overall flow of the course, and happens to be a par 3.5 then use it. Call it a par 3 or call it a par 4, just be aware of balancing the overall difficulty of the course relative to par. Many oldschool courses are full of par 2.5's and these courses need to be tweaked if they are to be used for competition at the highest level. There are also newer "super hard" courses that have a lot of par 3.5's and many of these need to be tweaked so that they become par 60-65 layouts where par means something. "Hot" rounds should be in the 4-10 under range.

What Chuck just said.

Denny,
In the design of Championship disc golf courses ( from back tees to long pin placements) I would think two under to seven under par should be the hottest rounds for 1000 rated players and above. -8 to -12 should only be shot from short tees or short pins! (IMO)
Very rarley in a PGA event on a championship course will the winner shoot 4 of the same scores to win.
This is the sign of a really well designed course.
They usually shoot one really hot round, 1 above average round and 2 average rounds to win the event.
most of the time if you have one bad round in a PGA event you will not win ( unless youre Tiger Woods or something:)

Ive played on alomst all 65 of the local Ball golf courses here in St Louis and I cant think of one hole that has changed its par since I started playing.
If I'm not mistaken, the designers of ball golf courses are the ones who determine the par for each hole and essentially the par for the course, while they are designing it.
Most professional ball golf courses play to a par 70-72, which usually adds up to 4 or 5 par 3's, 3 or 4 par 5's and the rest par 4's.
Has anyone seen a par 2 or par 6 on a televised PGA event?

Hole scoring average in ball golf is used to handicap the holes.
If you are playing a person in match play format who has a 3 stroke better handicap. You would get a stroke on the 3 hardest holes! Other than that I'm not sure what they do with the individual hole scoring average.

This debate is the opposite of the religious one on intelligent design versus evolution. In our case, our evolutionists have faith in ball golf traditions evolving into disc golf, also with no par 2s and two shots on the green. Our intelligent design group uses scientific testing to show that some holes have scoring averages less than 2.5 that should be rounded down to par 2s and that elite players only average 1.5 shots on the green which undermines the ball golf basis of par for our sport. Disc golf needs its own approach based on the measured differences between our two sports.


Chuck a lot of our courses here in St Louis have very tucked or sloped greens.
Where idid you come up with the 1.5 average putts per green?

That's from a 25,000 round analysis on about 150 courses. The factor for the average player is about 1.7 shots around the green per hole. Some of those are not putts so the putting might even be closer to 1.4-1.5 per hole. This factor has held up for the four years since we did the analysis. That's not to say individual holes don't have tougher greens. But this is the average figure for a wide cross section of courses across the country.

Can you imagine the chaos in ball golf if every course had its own standard for par? ...


Courses do vary in their difficulty relative to par. That's why handicaps are adjusted with the slope factor to make them portable.



The fact that they vary in difficulty relative to par is a separate issue. My point was that at least the same standards to determine par are used on every BG course. Par is also only established by qualified experts using uniform, consistent, and universal standards.

David,

On a separate note all together; where are you in Super Tours and above having four rounds all on different layouts, usually on the same course?

Regards,
Nick

In the design of Championship disc golf courses ( from back tees to long pin placements) I would think two under to seven under par should be the hottest rounds for 1000 rated players and above.


I said 4-10, so I think we're in the same ballpark there.



Very rarley in a PGA event on a championship course will the winner shoot 4 of the same scores to win.
This is the sign of a really well designed course.
They usually shoot one really hot round, 1 above average round and 2 average rounds to win the event.
most of the time if you have one bad round in a PGA event you will not win ( unless youre Tiger Woods or something:)



Excellent point. I think the single biggest improvement most disc golf courses can have in that regard is to require greater risk/reward in putting. Part of introducing that is having pin locations that don't always lend themselves to "parking" drives or upshots. When players have to make 40-70 ft. putts for birdie with the potential for three-putting iminent is when the game gets really interesting.


Ive played on alomst all 65 of the local Ball golf courses here in St Louis and I cant think of one hole that has changed its par since I started playing.
If I'm not mistaken, the designers of ball golf courses are the ones who determine the par for each hole and essentially the par for the course, while they are designing it.


And that's how I think it should be, given some sort of "guidelines" from the PDGA. My point there was that the designer should set pars and examine tournament data later to see how accurately they predicted score spreads on each hole. They can then do things about a particular hole like make it longer/shorter, change the tee angle, move the basket closer/farther to OB, redraw an OB line, or say, "this hole's great, I don't want to change a thing, but I got the par wrong". I think changing the par would be the minority of the cases.




Has anyone seen a par 2 or par 6 on a televised PGA event?


No


Hole scoring average in ball golf is used to handicap the holes.
If you are playing a person in match play format who has a 3 stroke better handicap. You would get a stroke on the 3 hardest holes! Other than that I'm not sure what they do with the individual hole scoring average.


It's technically not the "hardest" holes in the sense of difficulty relative to par. Whether a hole is a par 4 or a par 5 is irrelevant for hole handicapping. Hole handicaps are assigned where the greatest difference in average scores exists between a group of around 200 low handicappers (<8) and a group of around 200 medium to high handicappers (20-28) (The handicapping committee is granted some degree to deviate from the numerical ranking)

Denny,
Thanks for the back up,
Sometimes I cant get a grip on where chuck is heading and wonder how much of his direction is actually the direction the PDGA and its memberss want to go.
Sometimes it seems as though his formulas and calculations get in the wya of plain old commen sense.
BTW
I guess I meant the 3 highest ranking holes by perecentage above the par is where the guy would get the strokes.

Nick.
Depending on the course I could go either way.
Having all 4 rounds on the same layout is best if the shorter pins or tees become to hokey.
I would have no problem playing all 4 configurations at the newest par 69-72 we just put in in Centralia IL.
I'm guess the short tees to long pins will be harder than the long tees to short pins with the short to shprt the easiest and the long to long coming in with possibly the highest SSA inthe country( and the course has plenty of
rich reward from all 4 layouts. So far 65 id low on the
long tees to short pins.

As we are just choosing the pin placements for our Super tour this may in St Louis ( may 21-22) we are only having one round at each course. Jefferson Barracks, Endicott, Sioux Pasage and Creve coeur lake.
If we played all courses to the long pins ( we only have one tee per hole) it could be too much golf for one weekend.
I doubt anyone would be too far under par. We may reserve that if we get a worlds or something.
Fo this event we are using the pins that make the course flow the best!!

Has anyone seen a par 2 or par 6 on a televised PGA event?



Anyone seen a thumber on a PGA televised event? Anyone seen a basket on a PGA televised event? Using specific ball golf elements without appropriately adapting them where relevant dilutes the richness and uniqueness of our sport's own elements. It's as bad as the insidious use of the nonsensical term "stroke" (for disc golf) instead of "throw" (per our rulebook) in our media and casual conversation.

If the disc golf average is 1.7 putts/hole, then that is very close to the PGA Tour average of 1.78 putts/hole (check out pgatour.com). Our green size is probably a bit smaller as well. No kidding, although I'm not sure what Chuck is defining as a disc golf putt. (Maybe I need to read back further.)

No one's ever seen a par 2 on TV because there are no traditional golf holes where you can sink a putt from the tee, meaning there are no traditional golf holes measuring 100 ft. or less.

There are sometimes par 6s, but mainly in the LPGA, I think. There aren't many legitimate par 6s out there in tradtional golf, but there are a few.

Par is not average, nor is par equivalent to average.

Chap

One other thing:

Someone mentioned hole scoring average is used to handicap holes in traditional golf. That's sort of true. Traditional golf normally will not make par 3s in the top 6 most difficult holes for handicapping purposes, even if they measure that way by stroke average relative to par. The reason for this is that they don't want weaker players getting a stroke from a stronger player on a par 3 in general, since it's typically easier for a weaker player to make a par in that hole generally.

Chap

Someone mentioned hole scoring average is used to handicap holes in traditional golf. That's sort of true. Traditional golf normally will not make par 3s in the top 6 most difficult holes for handicapping purposes, even if they measure that way by stroke average relative to par. The reason for this is that they don't want weaker players getting a stroke from a stronger player on a par 3 in general, since it's typically easier for a weaker player to make a par in that hole generally.


That is the way it usually turns out after they have employed the statistical process I described which "par" is not a part of. Generally speaking, the shorter the hole, the less the difference between the average scores of Groups A and B. The committee may swap the order of two holes according to a proscribed procedure, but the committee does not "pick" the hole handicaps.

It's as bad as the insidious use of the nonsensical term "stroke" (for disc golf) instead of "throw" (per our rulebook) in our media and casual conversation.


dictionary.com lists 13 definitions of "stroke", 2 of which could be applied to throwing a golf disc:
1) A sudden action or process having a strong impact or effect
2) An inspired or effective idea or act
In my personal game the sudden action having a strong effect is often that I suddenly shank a drive strongly into the woods. After 3 or 4 tries throwing inefffective tomahawks, I'll usually try the inspired act of putting the disc back into the fairway.

I'd say the single greatest influence on my disc golf game has been Clarence Carter:
"I stroke it to the north
I stroke it to the south
I stroke it everywhere "

Seriously,
I strongly agree with the idea that we should take the best parts of golf, leave the rest, and not forgot that we are the illegitimate love-child of the game of presidents and barefoot hippies. This image may not be a perfect parallel, but I sure like it:
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/winter/images/nixon-elvis.jpg

If the disc golf average is 1.7 putts/hole, then that is very close to the PGA Tour average of 1.78 putts/hole (check out pgatour.com). Our green size is probably a bit smaller as well. No kidding, although I'm not sure what Chuck is defining as a disc golf putt. (Maybe I need to read back further.)



It may not be on this thread, but the 1.7 in DG is not putts but shots "Around the Green" (ATG). The ATG in ball golf is 2.1. There's a difference of at least 0.4 because the 2.1 is for scratch ball golfers and the 1.7 for DG is for a somewhat lower skill level. Either way, DG putting is close to half a shot easier than BG.

It may not be on this thread, but the 1.7 in DG is not putts but shots "Around the Green" (ATG). The ATG in ball golf is 2.1. There's a difference of at least 0.4 because the 2.1 is for scratch ball golfers and the 1.7 for DG is for a somewhat lower skill level. Either way, DG putting is close to half a shot easier than BG.

[/QUOTE]

That makes more sense, Chuck, but I'd still be interested to know what "around the green" means, at least from a disc golf point of view. Also, I'm curious how you collected your data on the disc golf side. I know you did some distance things at the Houston Worlds, but was unaware you worked with that much putting data (although I'm hardly surprised). Where did you collect the "around the green" disc golf data? Tournaments, local leagues, other places?

Chap

It's not directly data from observation but from the math involving course ratings for ball golf and disc golf. The formulas area:

Ball Golf: Course rating = 42 + (course length / 220)
Disc Golf: Course Rating (SSA) = 30 + (course length / 285)

For BG, lengths are yards. For DG, it's feet.

The constant values, 42 & 30, are known as "Around the Green" values which includes mostly putts because they are independent of the hole lengths for both sports. When you divide these constants by 18, you get values of 2.3 and 1.7. Looks like I mistyped the 2.3 as 2.1 in earlier posts for BG because it's even higher making the difference between BG and DG putting even more than discussed earlier.

An example of an ATG shot that has nothing to do with the length of the hole would be where the player throw a 250 ft shot on a 250 ft hole but shanked it to the right 80 feet from the pin. The player was able to throw long enough to reach the hole but their direction was off. Their second shot is longer than what would be considered a putt, essentially our version of a chip shot. Assuming they missed it, their third shot would usually be a putt to close out the hole.

Here's another nugget of information on putting data. I analyzed the scores from USDGC #17 and Highbridge #16 which are island greens about the same size. Everyone that landed on the island is assumed to have shot a 2 or 3 and all other scores are players who missed the island (or aced). I narrowed the scores to about 100 USDGC players who averaged a 1000 rating as a group so I have Gold level putting stats for players who land in what we consider our putting circle.

The same data for HG#16 is for about 40 Blue level players who played it twice (80 scores). Gold players sank 87% of their putts which presumably averaged about 20 feet. That's 1.13 putts. The Blue players sank 71% of their putts averaging 20 feet which works out to 1.29 putts. Looked at another way, Gold players sink 1 more putt per every 7 holes than Blue level players.

We know players sink putts from longer than a 10m radius cicle. This just shows where a good percentage of the shots in the ATG occur within 10m and the difference in skill between Gold and Blue.

Since Gold is better than Blue by roughly 5 shots at SSAs around 50, it would indicate that on average at least 2.88 of that difference is putting.

Here's the original graph of SSA values that determined the SSA formula. The dots above and below the graph are courses that are either more or less wooded than average. The dot near 70 is Dave's Ozark course. Some of the outliers are possibly errors in reporting accurate course lengths which was and still is a problem for analysis. TDs might specify 2 layouts, short and long, and enter the same length for each, which is presumably an error. We did our best to strip these out of the analysis.


SSA Graph (http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/ssa%20graph.jpg)

It's as bad as the insidious use of the nonsensical term "stroke" (for disc golf) instead of "throw" (per our rulebook) in our media and casual conversation.



You forgot to mention the tee pad. I have never seen anyone use a tee for their golf disc on the tee pad.

I think there are terms that we likely will and should keep, being the country-club-hippie-love-child that we are.

Perhaps it was originally T Pad which was short for Throwing Pad... yeah, that's the ticket!

Or maybe short for Tantrum Pad. (Teed-off Pad?)

Or watch-out-for-that-Tree Pad.

Or no-the-other-Tree Pad...

Since Gold is better than Blue by roughly 5 shots at SSAs around 50, it would indicate that on average at least 2.88 of that difference is putting.


That is interesting. It sounds like you have empirical data showing Blue and Gold players are more alike when making drives and approaches than they are when making putts.

I wonder if that ratio holds true for Red and Green players, or if the levels show one type of skill improvement: i.e., to go from Green to Red, you need 300-foot drives; to go from Red to Blue, you need 400-foot drives; to go from Blue to Gold, you need to sink putts within 20 feet.

We'll try to gather more data each year at the Mid-Nationals where we have divisions with relatively narrow ratings ranges. The USDGC data has always been helpful to see what Gold level players can do.

There are several posts I'd like to comment on. Instead of writing several posts, I see that some of you quote several different posts all in one reply. How do you do this? Thanks.

Highlight the text, Copy it. Then, click on Reply. Click on Quote in the Instant UBB Code table. Then, paste the text in between the two quote brackets. The box will be drawn around the text.

WARNING: Mathematical geek stuff ahead. Those not mathematically inclined please place pillow on keyboard so you won't hurt your head when you fall asleep and your head bangs against your keyboard.

For what it's worth, the Scratch Yardage Rating for traditional golf is actually 40.9 + (yardage/220), where the yardage is the effective playing length of the course, not necessarily just the length in yards. Uphill holes play longer than their measured length, downhill holes play shorter, etc..., but it's still around 2.3 per hole, so let's not split hairs, except for the sheer pleasure of it. The course rating is a combination of the scratch yardage rating and the scratch obstacle rating. The course rating is the score a scratch golfer would be expected to score on the course.

Also, there is a slope rating in ball golf that gives an expected score for BOGEY golfers. You gotta like that. Divide the slope by 5.381 for a male, add that number the course rating, and you have what an 18 handicap should shoot on the course.

You've reduced the "around the green" number by about 25%, and done roughly the same thing with the yardage/footage factor, so essentially what you've done is take the ball golf course rating formula, and multiplied it by 75% to get the disc golf SSA. That's a little simplistic, and that's probably just the way it worked out, but it's interesting that disc golf courses are typically thought of as par 54......which is 75% of the typical par 72 in traditional golf, and your SSA has a similar proportion to the ball golf course rating, although I guess that makes sense.

Warning :BRAINSTORMING:

What would happen to the SSA, and by extension, if you raised the "around the green" number and reduced the footage factor by about the same percentage?

The yardage number in the traditional golf rating is 220. The reason it's 220, is because the average scratch golfer can hit the ball 220 yards on the fly, and gets about 25-30 yards of roll. (Tiger Woods is much better than scratch. USGA defines scratch as an amateur that could reach the match play of the US Amateur) By extension, the disc golf equivalent is 285 feet. I, the equivalent of a disc golf 10 handicap (well, when my back's healthy I'm a 900 rating), average probably 320 feet on my drives. You've done more math than I have on this, but is it possible that we should say, make that yardage number maybe 340-350, and then raise the around the green number to about 36-37? What would that do to the SSAs, and by extension, to the player ratings?

Chap


It's not directly data from observation but from the math involving course ratings for ball golf and disc golf. The formulas area:

Ball Golf: Course rating = 42 + (course length / 220)
Disc Golf: Course Rating (SSA) = 30 + (course length / 285)

For BG, lengths are yards. For DG, it's feet.

The constant values, 42 & 30, are known as "Around the Green" values which includes mostly putts because they are independent of the hole lengths for both sports. When you divide these constants by 18, you get values of 2.3 and 1.7. Looks like I mistyped the 2.3 as 2.1 in earlier posts for BG because it's even higher making the difference between BG and DG putting even more than discussed earlier.

An example of an ATG shot that has nothing to do with the length of the hole would be where the player throw a 250 ft shot on a 250 ft hole but shanked it to the right 80 feet from the pin. The player was able to throw long enough to reach the hole but their direction was off. Their second shot is longer than what would be considered a putt, essentially our version of a chip shot. Assuming they missed it, their third shot would usually be a putt to close out the hole.

WARNING: Mathematical geek stuff ahead. Those not mathematically inclined please place pillow on keyboard so you won't hurt your head when you fall asleep and your head bangs against your keyboard. Actually, it's not difficult math, but it's probably that boring.

For what it's worth, the Scratch Yardage Rating for traditional golf is actually 40.9 + (yardage/220), where the yardage is the effective playing length of the course, not necessarily just the length in yards. Uphill holes play longer than their measured length, downhill holes play shorter, etc..., but it's still around 2.3 per hole, so let's not split hairs, except for the sheer pleasure of it. The course rating is a combination of the scratch yardage rating and the scratch obstacle rating. The course rating is the score a scratch golfer would be expected to score on the course.

Also, there is a slope rating in ball golf that gives an expected score for BOGEY golfers. You gotta like that. Divide the slope by 5.381 for a male, add that number the course rating, and you have what an 18 handicap should shoot on the course.

You've reduced the "around the green" number by about 25%, and done roughly the same thing with the yardage/footage factor, so essentially what you've done is take the ball golf course rating formula, and multiplied it by 75% to get the disc golf SSA. That's a little simplistic, and that's probably just the way it worked out, but it's interesting that disc golf courses are typically thought of as par 54......which is 75% of the typical par 72 in traditional golf, and your SSA has a similar proportion to the ball golf course rating, although I guess that makes sense.

Warning :BRAINSTORMING:

What would happen to the SSA, and by extension, if you raised the "around the green" number and reduced the footage factor by about the same percentage?

The yardage number in the traditional golf rating is 220. The reason it's 220, is because the average scratch golfer can hit the ball 220 yards on the fly, and gets about 25-30 yards of roll. (Tiger Woods is much better than scratch. USGA defines scratch as an amateur that could reach the match play of the US Amateur) By extension, the disc golf equivalent is 285 feet. I, the equivalent of a disc golf 10 handicap (well, when my back's healthy I'm a 900 rating), average probably 320 feet on my drives. You've done more math than I have on this, but is it possible that we should say, make that yardage number maybe 340-350, and then raise the around the green number to about 36-37? What would that do to the SSAs, and by extension, to the player ratings?

Chap


It's not directly data from observation but from the math involving course ratings for ball golf and disc golf. The formulas area:

Ball Golf: Course rating = 42 + (course length / 220)
Disc Golf: Course Rating (SSA) = 30 + (course length / 285)

For BG, lengths are yards. For DG, it's feet.

The constant values, 42 &amp; 30, are known as "Around the Green" values which includes mostly putts because they are independent of the hole lengths for both sports. When you divide these constants by 18, you get values of 2.3 and 1.7. Looks like I mistyped the 2.3 as 2.1 in earlier posts for BG because it's even higher making the difference between BG and DG putting even more than discussed earlier.

An example of an ATG shot that has nothing to do with the length of the hole would be where the player throw a 250 ft shot on a 250 ft hole but shanked it to the right 80 feet from the pin. The player was able to throw long enough to reach the hole but their direction was off. Their second shot is longer than what would be considered a putt, essentially our version of a chip shot. Assuming they missed it, their third shot would usually be a putt to close out the hole.

Am I reading this right? Chuck is using 30 ft as "close" shot? If so, that is unrealistically short for Gold standard putting. I wondered where the 1.7 number came from. Is this where?

I'm not using any particular distance for putting. I just happened to have comparative putting data for Gold versus Blue level players on greens about the same size as our 10m putting circle. It's apparent that shots farther than 10m qualify for putts because Gold players averaged 1.13 within a 10m circle and they average 1.5-1.7 shots around the green overall. Some of that 0.37-0.57 gap would include putts from 10m to say 15m depending on how far we want to call a throw a putt versus a "chip shot."

Well that explains the Gold ratings. 1.13 inside 10M is ridiculously good. I think I might be 1.7 inside 10M. Anyway, putts are putts, no matter how far they are. You are on the "green" when you decide you are. When you take a putting stance and execute a putt, you are putting. I don't know what ball golf does with the stats when a ball golfer decides to putt from off their defined green, but we don't have a defined green. Many times we don't even have defined fairways. That and variety of course design and shot selection are the main differences between the two golfs, ours and theirs. That makes statistics much more difficult for us. Greens in regulation? Fairways in regulation? Forget about it. Average shots per hole for designated skill levels is a fact. After that, things get real fuzzy.

What would happen to the SSA, and by extension, if you raised the "around the green" number and reduced the footage factor by about the same percentage?




Raising our putting challenge would make our metrics closer to ball golf. Contrary to what some might think, our courses in the 54-58 SSA range are closer to the drive/putt balance in ball golf than courses over 60 SSA like Winthrop Gold courses. Our high SSA courses have much more emphasis on driving than ball golf courses. If we made putting tougher, we would boost the SSA without having to make courses longer and our shot balance would be closer to ball golf, that's presuming that emulating their balance is a worthwhile goal.

Our high SSA courses have much more emphasis on driving than ball golf courses. If we made putting tougher, we would boost the SSA without having to make courses longer and our shot balance would be closer to ball golf, that's presuming that emulating their balance is a worthwhile goal.



excuse me for chiming in from the peanut gallery, but are you suggesting we consider making baskets/targets smaller? :eek:
note to self: highlight "move putting practice from procrastination list to do list" asap
discs are definitely not balls and our green surfaces -- no matter how well manicured -- do not make putting any easier, but smaller targets would be an interesting challenge :eek:

Smaller targets would be one option to increase putting average. I realize it would be a major change and I'm not recommending it. However, I bring it up whenever people try to shoehorn disc golf into ball golf parameters. Our metrics are not the same with a major difference being putting average. That's what leads to this acrimony over setting par and increasing course lengths, etc.

that's presuming that emulating their balance is a worthwhile goal.


IMHO, it's not! Just because we have "golf" in our name, it doesn't follow that we should tweak the rules & standards of our sport to emulate the metrics of their sport. It's a complete apples/oranges thing.

Smaller targets would be one option to increase putting average. I realize it would be a major change and I'm not recommending it. However, I bring it up whenever people try to shoehorn disc golf into ball golf parameters. Our metrics are not the same with a major difference being putting average. That's what leads to this acrimony over setting par and increasing course lengths, etc.



Exactly. I wouldn't recommend it either. The financial ramifications of going to a smaller target would be astronomical, unless we were willing to live with major variations in target sizes from course to course.

Though there are many parallels between DG and BG, targets and game objects are not one of them. The target to game object ratio in DG (basket to disc) is much different than that of BG (cup to ball). That's why aces are so prevalent in DG. It's inherently easier to get a disc in a basket than it is to get a ball in a cup from the same distance.

here's a definition to argue. par is birdie (the typical flawless play of a hole) plus one. the typical is there to exclude flukes, etc. it's simple and doesn't require a calculator. use available driving distances and putting statistics for skill level adjustments.

I don't want to copy everything, but 'golf' itself is definitely part of the other sport that I do enjoy and hope we are able to better emulate as more and more par 66 courses get built. If you haven't had the pleasure of playing courses with par 3s, 4s, and 5s, you might not understand what I'm talking about.

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the disc golf courses that are mostly par 2s and 3s with maybe one near par 4s, but there is something special about 'golf' itself as a game seperate from the method of projecting the projectile, the form of the projectile and the form of the target. That is what I'd like to see more of in disc golf.

Recognizing a meaningful standard for par in disc golf will help in the direction greatly I believe.

It's not directly data from observation but from the math involving course ratings for ball golf and disc golf. The formulas area:

Ball Golf: Course rating = 42 + (course length / 220)
Disc Golf: Course Rating (SSA) = 30 + (course length / 285)

For BG, lengths are yards. For DG, it's feet.

The constant values, 42 & 30, are known as "Around the Green" values which includes mostly putts because they are independent of the hole lengths for both sports. When you divide these constants by 18, you get values of 2.3 and 1.7. Looks like I mistyped the 2.3 as 2.1 in earlier posts for BG because it's even higher making the difference between BG and DG putting even more than discussed earlier.

An example of an ATG shot that has nothing to do with the length of the hole would be where the player throw a 250 ft shot on a 250 ft hole but shanked it to the right 80 feet from the pin. The player was able to throw long enough to reach the hole but their direction was off. Their second shot is longer than what would be considered a putt, essentially our version of a chip shot. Assuming they missed it, their third shot would usually be a putt to close out the hole.


Chuck,
Depending on the greens slope or amount of trees and bushes next to the green, that 80 footer could easily be considered a putt. If so that would mean 2 putss on that hole and not one!
Wouldnt that would make your 1.7 avergage go way up?
If a player can get "up and down" that easy from 80 feet I would consider that more of a putt than a chip.
Usually when you miss the green in ball golf, The grass is higher or there are mounds and slopes to contend with that can affect a 10' chip. some 10' chips are closer to 200' up shots in disc golf.
I would think ball golfers get "up and down" from just off the green as often as we do from more like 120 - 180.
I think you math is getting in the way of reality.
Set formulas for the amount of putts is obsurd, the only real data that can be used is from establishing what the greens are and recording the amount of strokes.

Chap,
Is there a way to find a percenatge for up and down " one putts" from off the green for players on the PGA tour?

Since Gold is better than Blue by roughly 5 shots at SSAs around 50, it would indicate that on average at least 2.88 of that difference is putting.


That is interesting. It sounds like you have empirical data showing Blue and Gold players are more alike when making drives and approaches than they are when making putts.

I wonder if that ratio holds true for Red and Green players, or if the levels show one type of skill improvement: i.e., to go from Green to Red, you need 300-foot drives; to go from Red to Blue, you need 400-foot drives; to go from Blue to Gold, you need to sink putts within 20 feet.


Paul,
You could really be onto something here.
Par 54 disc golf is about 2/3rds putting and par 72 disc golf is more like 1/2.
Almost everey top pro player I know is a great putter, once we have more par 4's we will most likely see a wider range of players who have a chance to cash and maybe even win events.
If all NT events were played on par 70 -72 style course it could hurt attendance right now, but eventually it will increase by bringing so called blue level players into a more competitive atmosphere with so called Gold level putters ( I mean players) :D

Par 54 disc golf is about 2/3rds putting and par 72 disc golf is more like 1/2



Nope. Putting on par 54-58 DG courses is about the same percentage as on a par 72 ball golf course. DG courses over SSAs of 58 or so become more and more driving biased than ball golf. Unless our putting challenge is increased, courses with SSAs around 66 become a reasonable high limit, and SSAs of 72 mostly become driving ranges. Reread my earlier posts that show the difference in the metrics between the two sports and Chappy's analysis.


If all NT events were played on par 70 -72 style course it could hurt attendance right now



Bad move not due to attendance but because these courses are imbalanced toward driving versus putting skill.

these courses are imbalanced toward driving versus putting skill.



or is it that par 3 courses are imbalanced toward putting skill and we are just used to that?

Depending on the greens slope or amount of trees and bushes next to the green, that 80 footer could easily be considered a putt. If so that would mean 2 putts on that hole and not one! Wouldn't that would make your 1.7 average go way up?




That 80 footer gets the ratio up to 1.7. The 1.7 isn't "my" factor, it's the average factor for disc golf derived from hundreds of rounds on many courses shown in the graph on the earlier post. Even if the line is slightly off, the ATG factor is no more than 1.8 and could actually be 1.6.

or is it that par 3 courses are imbalanced toward putting skill and we are just used to that?



Let's say that putting averages around 1.4 of the 1.7. Let's say driving averages 1.4 to exactly match the putting. Multiply the 1.4 by 18 and we get 25 "drives." That would be about 12 par 3s and 5 par 4s and a par 5. At 3.1 average per hole, the SSA would come out about 56 with a par of 61, somewhat similar to Jordan Creek at Worlds this past year. This course example is currently balanced with similar metrics to ball golf.

As the course gets longer than this example, it becomes less like ball golf and moves into more of a driving experience versus putting. The X factor not discussed yet, and it doesn't fit neatly in the formulas, is approach shots. These are shots that require less than full power, usually from the fairway, but can also be from the tee. As long as the longer courses are designed to constrain the maximum length several shots can be thrown, it mitigates the "drive" factor and could be considered a third type of throw in terms of balancing the experience. That would be one way to justify courses with SSAs higher than the low 60s or so. However, the trick is to force the lengths of approaches using effective risk/reward elements such as OB in Winthrop's case. Nockamixon does it primarily with doglegs and some OBs.

Chap,
Is there a way to find a percenatge for up and down " one putts" from off the green for players on the PGA tour?



David, the scrambling stat is pretty close. It measures the percentage that a player makes par or better when he/she missed a green in regulation. The best scarambiling percentage for the 2005 PGA Tour was about 64.5%, and the median was 57.7%.

Chap

Chap,
Is there a way to find a percenatge for up and down " one putts" from off the green for players on the PGA tour?

[/QUOTE]

David,

The scrambling stat is pretty close. It measures the percentage of pars or better made when a player misses a green in regulation. The best scrambling percentage was 64.5% in PGA Tour 2005, and the median was 57.7%. Of course, those aren't all one putts. Some of them are hole-outs from the fairway, fringe, et cetera.

Chap

Par 54 disc golf is about 2/3rds putting and par 72 disc golf is more like 1/2



Nope. Putting on par 54-58 DG courses is about the same percentage as on a par 72 ball golf course...


Chuck, I didn't follow this response. Gateway was talking about disc golf on par 54 and par 72 courses. Which putt/drive ratio are you taking issue with?

Am I reading this right? Chuck is using 30 ft as "close" shot? If so, that is unrealistically short for Gold standard putting. I wondered where the 1.7 number came from. Is this where?



Dave,

What does the word "this" refer to? I'm wondering if you are looking at the post just above yours which says


Disc Golf: Course Rating (SSA) = 30 + (course length / 285)



I wonder if that is the number 30 that you were thinking about. If it is then that does not refer to length. The 30 in that formula refers to throws. It is a constant of 30 throws for 18 holes which equals 1.67 per hole.

You may well already know this so sorry if I'm misinterpreting your post.

Chuck, I didn't follow this response. Gateway was talking about disc golf on par 54 and par 72 courses. Which putt/drive ratio are you taking issue with?



Putting is about 25-27 throws (of the average 30 shots around the green) per 18 holes for Gold level. A par 54 disc golf course has an SSA around 50-52, so putting is about half the shots on a par 54 disc golf course. Putting is still 25-27 shots on any disc golf course for Gold level. That's a constant value. If the par is 72 for disc golf, the SSA will likely be around 67-69. Putting will be about 26/68 or ~40% of the shots.

For ball golf at scratch level (zero handicap), putting is around 34-36 shots (of the average 41 around the green). For par 72, the course rating will range from 69-73. So, the putting ratio is about 35/71 or ~50% for ball golf.

So, even though it might seem like par 54 disc golf has been too putting biased compared to ball golf, it is actually about the same ratio as par 72 ball golf. The longer we make disc golf courses beyond par 54, the less important putting becomes as a percentage of shots in comparison to ball golf.

I'm not saying this is bad or good, just reporting the facts. I think those that have supported longer courses believe they are making disc golf more like ball golf. But they're not, at least as it pertains to putting. The only way to make the putting ratio remain at 50% on longer disc golf courses would be to make putting tougher.

The easiest away to do it will be using a smaller target. But I'm not saying we should do that. The key to making longer courses, and not have them turn into driving ranges, is to make sure there are sufficient approach style throws where players can't throw at full power. This third type of shot can be designed to have much more variety in disc golf than ball golf. This embraces the uniqueness and strengths of our sport.

This allows us to have challenging longer courses with a better mix of par 4s and 5s which IS a reason to emulate one element of the ball golf model, just not putting ratios. The richness and variety of approach shots in disc golf also pertains to par 3s which should not be neglected on longer courses. Many par 3 shots off the tee are not drives but more like approach shots. Most of the designers in the DGCD working with longer course designs strive to make sure at least 6-8 par 3s remain in the mix instead of just 4 par 3s like the ball golf model. This leads to an ideal disc golf long course par around 66-68 not 70-72.

Putting is about 25-27 throws (of the average 30 shots around the green) per 18 holes for Gold level. A par 54 disc golf course has an SSA around 50-52, so putting is about half the shots on a par 54 disc golf course. Putting is still 25-27 shots on any disc golf course for Gold level. That's a constant value. If the par is 72 for disc golf, the SSA will likely be around 67-69. Putting will be about 26/68 or ~40% of the shots.


These numbers are all guestimates as there is no definition of "putt" or "around the green" in disc golf. Yes, the ratio of putts to total shots will go down as par goes up and that IS A GOOD THING.


For ball golf at scratch level (zero handicap), putting is around 34-36 shots (of the average 41 around the green). For par 72, the course rating will range from 69-73. So, the putting ratio is about 35/71 or ~50% for ball golf.


On last year's PGA tour the median putts per round was 32 and the median scoring average was 71 for a 45% ratio.


So, even though it might seem like par 54 disc golf has been too putting biased compared to ball golf, it is actually about the same ratio as par 72 ball golf.


The ratios aren't that far off, but the degree of difficulty and possibility for three-putting is too low on most disc golf courses.


The key to making longer courses, and not have them turn into driving ranges, is to make sure there are sufficient approach style throws where players can't throw at full power. This third type of shot can be designed to have much more variety in disc golf than ball golf. This embraces the uniqueness and strengths of our sport.


Agree 100%!


This allows us to have challenging longer courses with a better mix of par 4s and 5s which IS a reason to emulate one element of the ball golf model, just not putting ratios. The richness and variety of approach shots in disc golf also pertains to par 3s which should not be neglected on longer courses. Many par 3 shots off the tee are not drives but more like approach shots. Most of the designers in the DGCD working with longer course designs strive to make sure at least 6-8 par 3s remain in the mix instead of just 4 par 3s like the ball golf model. This leads to an ideal disc golf long course par around 66-68 not 70-72.


It really depends on the lay of the land and designer preference. I grew up playing on golf on several old-school courese where the holes were designed to best flow with existing terrain and minimal dirt was moved and trees cut. Later on I played on some courses that were bulldozed from start to end to fit in with housing developments. I usually hate those courses. My point being that while designers may have an "perfect" par number in mind, it's more important to take advantage of the "natural" holes a property provides. I think for championship layouts the ideal par range is wide (62-72).

On last year's PGA tour the median putts per round was 32 and the median scoring average was 71 for a 45% ratio.



You fell into the trap of using PGA versus scratch golfer (expert Am) stats which are higher. Using PGA stats would be like using only stats for our super gold players of 1020+ ratings.


These numbers are all guestimates as there is no definition of "putt" or "around the green" in disc golf.



The 'around the green' factor is not an estimate. It's a constant of 30 per round. What is an estimate is what part of that is putts. However, we have the low end limit from the Winthrop Gold stats cited earlier of 1.13 (20 per round) for a 30-ft circle. We know Gold level putts from farther out, thus the 25-27 estimate. This putting portion may be even lower at 23-25 per round making the putting ratio even lower for all examples discussed.

I think for championship layouts the ideal par range is wide (62-72).




You won't get much support among the designers, and I believe players, for pars beyond about 68. Winthrop Gold at par 67 or 68 has 7 twoable holes which is about the minimum that makes sense in terms of embracing the variety of par 3s available in DG. In addition, if players don't get at least one or two 2s a round, they aren't going to enjoy the experience. In fact, as long as you have the 6-8 twoable holes in the mix, you can pump up the par with more than four par 5s to reach par 70-72. But the typical ball golf 4-10-4 mix of par 3s, 4s & 5s is not the best relative to DG metrics. For the longest DG courses, it's more like 6-10-2, 7-8-3 or 8-6-4 for a par of 68. Worst case may be 6-8-4 for a par of 70.

But the typical ball golf 4-10-4 mix of par 3s, 4s & 5s is not the best relative to DG metrics. For the longest DG courses, it's more like 6-10-2, 7-8-3 or 8-6-4 for a par of 68. Worst case may be 6-8-4 for a par of 70.



I think that 10-4-4 par 66 is another good combination because the similarity to standard BG courses and for the symetry of the par 4s and 5s.

In an ideal world it would be wonderful to see DG courses with a standard par similar to the par 72 standard of BG. This would sure reduce portability error when playing and comparing courses. Personally I favor 8-6-4 par 68. I like the balance.

Since Gold is better than Blue by roughly 5 shots at SSAs around 50, it would indicate that on average at least 2.88 of that difference is putting.


That is interesting. It sounds like you have empirical data showing Blue and Gold players are more alike when making drives and approaches than they are when making putts.

I wonder if that ratio holds true for Red and Green players, or if the levels show one type of skill improvement: i.e., to go from Green to Red, you need 300-foot drives; to go from Red to Blue, you need 400-foot drives; to go from Blue to Gold, you need to sink putts within 20 feet.


Paul,
You could really be onto something here.
Par 54 disc golf is about 2/3rds putting and par 72 disc golf is more like 1/2.
Almost everey top pro player I know is a great putter, once we have more par 4's we will most likely see a wider range of players who have a chance to cash and maybe even win events.
If all NT events were played on par 70 -72 style course it could hurt attendance right now, but eventually it will increase by bringing so called blue level players into a more competitive atmosphere with so called Gold level putters ( I mean players) :D



I definitely agree with all of that. I am only periodically a good putter, but the rest of my game is pretty steady. Where I have trouble at big events is usually when we go to the pitch and putt layout. This is not always true, but it does really seem this way. I do believe the best players always win though, so I'm not saying long courses will change everything, that would be farfetched.

Par 54 disc golf is about 2/3rds putting and par 72 disc golf is more like 1/2



Nope. Putting on par 54-58 DG courses is about the same percentage as on a par 72 ball golf course. DG courses over SSAs of 58 or so become more and more driving biased than ball golf. Unless our putting challenge is increased, courses with SSAs around 66 become a reasonable high limit, and SSAs of 72 mostly become driving ranges. Reread my earlier posts that show the difference in the metrics between the two sports and Chappy's analysis.


If all NT events were played on par 70 -72 style course it could hurt attendance right now



Bad move not due to attendance but because these courses are imbalanced toward driving versus putting skill.



Chuck, what about par 66 courses that are not driving ranges, where holes with pars above 3 require a clean and reasonable direction change or two? Where the preferred landing areas are say between 250 and 350 feet and there are no "cheat routes" and throwing too far is just as bad as throwing too short? That is the type of par 66 course I am talking about. Not ones with 800 0r 425 foot wide open fairways across a flat field (or "the wake me up when their over" holes" as I like to call them) holes. It doesn't negate the advantage of power, it just emphasizes the advantage of control.

(I see you answered this in a later post. This is an excellent discussion.)

The easiest way to make putting tougher is to declare that putts start from 100 ft. and get rid of the notion that you're not putting until you are on or next to the 10 meter falling putt zone. Some gold level players can putt beyond 100 ft. Steve Valencia used to can putts from 150 ft on a regular basis. Changing the notion of when a player is putting would be a lot easier than changing the size of the target.

This is purely heuristic as it still does nothing about holes that average less than 2.5 throws per hole. Redesign or exclusion from gold level play is my answer for those holes. A hole that averages 2.4 may actually be a very good hole in terms of fairness and score spread. The fact that it is easier than 2.5 and therefore is a statistically impared par three, doesn't mean it won't work for a balanced course design. The aggregate score is more important than any individual hole's scoring average. It is only when you have more than one or two of these holes, and no other balancing difficult Par 3s, 4s, or 5s, that it becomes a problem with overall Par and aggregate average.

As far as how many strokes to give a late player goes: I don't think late gold level players should be a concern for course design. What other professional sport would even allow a late start?

Chuck,
I suggested a range of 62-72. You don't think designers or players would prefer over par 68. I don't really like below par 65. I actually do prefer pars in that range (65-68).

I think it's much more important that the course par be reasonably close to wcp than the course par match our favorite # (66,68,69 dude).

I do think you're right about players wanting to "get their deuces", but I think that's part of the growing pains as we move away from par 54 disc golf. I've never heard Tiger Woods say, "I drove well, hit my irons well, putted well, shot 65, but I only made one 2 and don't feel quite satisfied."

I do think you're right about players wanting to "get their deuces", but I think that's part of the growing pains as we move away from par 54 disc golf.



That's not the primary reason for retaining more par 3s than BG but it is related. In talking with Harold and Houck, who along with myself, probably have the most experience with long course design, we've all independently come to similar conclusions regarding what's appropriate, acceptable and feels right for DG versus BG. Harold expressed it best when he described how the shot variety of par 3 holes in DG is vastly greater than the shot variety of par 3s in BG. In BG, the variety is what's on the ground both surrounding the green and the green itself which dictates the challenge. The tee shot primarily varies in the amount of loft/distance and rarely are drivers used.

In DG, we can have tee shots that are open, tight, straight, left, right, uphill, downhill and cross hill fairways along with lengths that range from using putters to drivers and possible OB. And, of course, any combination of these items might be available. This is way beyond the options in BG. We feel the unique DG playing experience would be cheated by not having 6-8 of these holes within the course mix. Add to this the fact that aces are more common on DG par 3s than BG par 3s. It's just cheating the nature of our sport to shoehorn ball golf hole balance into DG course design, just because it's ball golf. We need to learn and understand our own parameters to discover what's good for our sport and what our players feel is right when they play it.

The easiest way to make putting tougher is to declare that putts start from 100 ft. and get rid of the notion that you're not putting until you are on or next to the 10 meter falling putt zone.



That doesn't work. The only way to budge the 30 shots 'around the green' constant factor is to either change the basket to a smaller target area, or worse, once you get inside a certain distance from the basket, require using some strange type of disc that's harder to control than current putters. That 30 factor (+/-2) is locked in for our sport as it exists today. Even making longer throwing discs like the Wraith doesn't even affect the other part of the equation for scoring on par 3s, just a little bit on par 4s and 5s.

In DG, we can have tee shots that are open, tight, straight, left, right, uphill, downhill and cross hill fairways along with lengths that range from using putters to drivers and possible OB. And, of course, any combination of these items might be available. This is way beyond the options in BG.


Very true and another of the many reasons I love disc golf. There is nothing in what you just said, however, that is exclusive to par 3 tee shots.

Aces are cool, so are 2's on 650 ft. holes, and 3's on 1000 ft. holes.

There is nothing in what you just said, however, that is exclusive to par 3 tee shots.




Yes there is. All competitors are faced with a shot from the same position unlike any fairway throw. And everyone watching the pros can try the same throw when they play the course. Most other players in the world will not be making their second throw on a par 4 or 5 from where Brinster's drive lands, for example.

Yes there is. All competitors are faced with a shot from the same position unlike any fairway throw. And everyone watching the pros can try the same throw when they play the course. Most other players in the world will not be making their second throw on a par 4 or 5 from where Brinster's drive lands, for example.


Everyone faces the same tee shot on a hole regardless of the par. Yes, they will face different shots for their second shots and that's a good thing. That's where the beauty of the extra strategy involved with par 4's and 5's comes in.

I do think the great disc golf elements that you've attributed to par 3 holes should be used for tee shots on 4's and 5's as well. I do not think that "driving range" power should be a huge advantage at the highest level of the game. Every course should have a few shots that say, "hey kid, you think you got arm? Give it a try, maybe make an eagle, but if you don't make it you're staring double bogey or worse in the face!"

If all holes are designed well to require a variety of shot shapes and lengths, while sometimes giving controlled power extra risk/reward options then a course with a higher par will give the best players more opportunities to display their skills and separate them from the field.

I'm certainly not going to cry that there are too many par 3's on a par 65 course, it's still way better (assuming a good design) than par 54. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I haven't seen any reason that par 65 is inherently superior to par 70.

On the best golf courses there are usually one or two "postcard" par 3's. These are holes like #17 at Pebble Beach or TPC Sawgrass where you stand on the tee, look at the green and say, "this hole rules!". Par 3's and 5's are cool and have their place, but if I had to pick one par that all holes would be, it would be par 4.

these courses are imbalanced toward driving versus putting skill.



or is it that par 3 courses are imbalanced toward putting skill and we are just used to that?



Yes par 3 courses HEAVILY Favor putting.
As their are about 10 new drivers to putters made and sold each year, the demand for courses where these drivers can be used will naturally evolve!
Since we now have 3 course with par 70-72 here in St Louis, Ive noticed a lot of good local golfers( Mostly good putters) having trouble from the 80-180 range, where player who lack the big drives off the tee have been using this shot for decades.
If a par 72 course is designed properly it will only give players with well rounded games a better chance to compete, today and in the future :cool:

I dont think we will get Chuck to agree on any of this, his math formulas regarding putting are JUST NOT ACCURATE. I am still wondering if he was actually on every green for every player at Highbridge or Usdgc, counting the putts or something?

My main concern for disc golf putting is not the distance of what a putt is, nor the size of the green, but the near total lack of real green diversity.

Consider the huge advantage in ball golf of just getting a drive or approach shot "onto" the green. Then consider how incredibly important it is to stop on a certain part of that green. Then the speed of the putt from that spot. Sure there are some interesting greens here and there but largely they involve little more than elevation changes or vicinity to OB.

There is a lot of work to do in dg in this department imo. A lot of room for improvement.

There is nothing in what you just said, however, that is exclusive to par 3 tee shots.




Yes there is. All competitors are faced with a shot from the same position unlike any fairway throw. And everyone watching the pros can try the same throw when they play the course. Most other players in the world will not be making their second throw on a par 4 or 5 from where Brinster's drive lands, for example.



They will be if their tee shot is a 290 foot shot to a preferred landing area, where going past that point is a certain extra stroke. Then it is more a matter of control than power, though power certainly is not negated, nor should it be.

Dave, I've supported everything we've talked about here with testing and data. The most telling thing about whether some aspects of this knowledge is accurate is whether it can be used to forecast future results. I've done this with the results for all skill divisions at Mid-Nats by forecasting the scores by hole, not just the course, and watching them come right in when the holes were actually played. And, I've been fine tuning the process for several years since 2001 Pro Worlds.

All you rely on is your hope and conviction that your long course designs make sense coming from a ball golf perspective with apparently no testing or analysis (or interaction with other long course designers) to back it up. You don't seem to want to try and understand analytical information because it flies in the face of your convictions.

these courses are imbalanced toward driving versus putting skill.



or is it that par 3 courses are imbalanced toward putting skill and we are just used to that?



Yes par 3 courses HEAVILY Favor putting.
As their are about 10 new drivers to putters made and sold each year, the demand for courses where these drivers can be used will naturally evolve!
Since we now have 3 course with par 70-72 here in St Louis, Ive noticed a lot of good local golfers( Mostly good putters) having trouble from the 80-180 range, where player who lack the big drives off the tee have been using this shot for decades.
If a par 72 course is designed properly it will only give players with well rounded games a better chance to compete, today and in the future :cool:



Justin Bunnell proved to me he has a very well rounded disc golf skills when he crushed the course record of 58 for the longs at Idlewild (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Courses&Number=488229&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1). While Idlewild has its share of long holes, the tight fairways and strategic landing areas and hole variation test just about every aspect of a person's game.

I played pitch and putt par 54 courses recreationally in the 80's when i was into ultimate but the lack of challenge left a lot to be desired and i never became too interested in disc golf. After playing Idlewild in 2002, i was hooked. It seems to me that par 72 disc golf is by far more attractive for a skilled frisbee thrower because it really challenges a player and it is challenges which make golf attractive as a sport. Tougher par 3 courses also have the added attraction of a great deal of challenge, but par 4 courses are even better. Drive, putt; drive, putt; drive putt isn't much fun. It's good to hear that St. Louis has some tough, challenging courses.

putting is still important on courses with SSA's of 60 and higher, but no longer is it the main thing that separates the field. The only type of players who would prefer par 3 courses -- it seems to me -- are players who putt well but aren't so good in other aspects of the game. Or the die-hard traditionalist who doesn't embrace change.

my two cents. ymmv

Since we now have 3 course with par 70-72 here in St Louis, Ive noticed a lot of good local golfers( Mostly good putters) having trouble from the 80-180 range, where player who lack the big drives off the tee have been using this shot for decades.



And I thought it was just me that had that problem.... :cool::D

If you haven't had the pleasure of playing courses with par 3s, 4s, and 5s, you might not understand what I'm talking about.


Your snide condescension is noted &amp; greatly appreciated, but I have, indeed, designed &amp; built a par 66 course &amp; play it almost daily (at my house).

I think you misinterpreted my post. I think that the varied challenges of holes of various "pars" are an exciting part of the game, but purposefully tweaking those challenges to strive for some sort of "drive/putt balance" to mimic that of ball golf is not only silly, but also probably impossible due to the lack of direct correlation between ball golf shots &amp; disc golf shots, especially in the concept of "2-putting".

And I think you likewise misread me. Folks that haven't experienced it naturally won't get it. Doesn't make them less of a person, it just makes them without that experience.

I'm still not getting your point though. Why wouldn't more challenge on our dg greens be a good thing, regardless of whether they bring us closer to bg averages on their greens or not? I'm not saying make them like miniature bg courses with windmills, but there has got to be some tricks that have yet to be explored to make play around and on our dg greens far more challenging.

(I know Joe Mela and the BCDGA are doing some interesting things at Tyler around their putting greens.)

I thought risk reward was one of those concepts that made every dg shot better, not just drives and approach shots.

Chuck,
I will ask the question again, as you seem to avoid most of the ones I ask you directly.
Do you get paid by the pdga to complile any of this analytical information?

Are you trying to tell me your figures on putting strokes are from actual data and not speculation?

You and I followed a few groups together at highbridge for several holes, I dont remember seeing you counting anyones putts or writing anything down at all.

Can you explain to me how you are calculating the amount of putts a player is taking on a particular course?

Do you get paid by the pdga to complile any of this analytical information?

Are you trying to tell me your figures on putting strokes are from actual data and not speculation?




No. Yes.

Go back on this thread and read my post 494955 a few days ago on 1/12/06. It shows how you can easily calculate the putting stats on "island" holes by counting 2s and 3s and not actually be there.

Chuck, that is just ONE way you collected data on putting, correct??

What other ways have you used?

I have a feeling you are going to let down alot of people if that is the only way you have collected actual putting stats.

Chuck,
I read about the calculations on the island green, but thats not a very good corrilation.
That green, while surronded by water, was flat and not much risk of 3 putting.

I applaud your math skills and determination to make math work. In another corrilation, there is a reason engineers and mathmaticians do not adapt well to some of the most basic evryday problems.


It is a shame you do not get paid to do all this work :confused:

The question would be would you agree to do it any other way than your own?




I have a poll going asking about what would happen if dues were doubled.
I know it would be a small sampling of hard core disc golfers, but if the majority of players would rejoin, we could easily hire a few more STAFF members! ;)

The analysis from thousands of rounds on over 150 courses showed that there are no more than 30 shots per round (+/-2) around the green on an 18-hole course. That's no more than 1.7 shots around the green on average per hole. The putting average HAS to be less than that number for Gold level players. Here's the data that generated the best fit SSA equation SSA Graph (http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/ssa%20graph.jpg)

I haven't been on a mission to analyze putting data. I just happen to be able to use what data is available. I'd like to get more but I'm satisifed we've gotten some pretty good confirmation of the limits from existing data. The island hole data analysis is ideal because your tee shot either lands in a well defined area or not. So looking at scores is all that's needed without even being there.

As Dave points out, the island greens analyzed were flat and 3 putts were unlikely. That doesn't mean designers can't make putting more difficult on specific holes, just that on average for all courses, it's less than 1.7 putts per hole for Gold level. In the case of Winthrop #17, only 1.13 putts within 30 feet. And we don't know how much of the difference between 1.7 and 1.13 would have been "putts" outside 30 feet because they weren't allowed on this hole. It doesn't really make any difference because who cares whether a 55 footer is called a putt or "chip shot" because it still falls within the 1.7 "around the green" max either way.

Chuck, the island putting analysis is a little off. The comparison between levels is good, but calling it a 10 M putting green is not. A real 10 M circle is a little different from USDGC as you can never putt from the line, even if it really was 10 meters. Additionally, number 17 USDGC has a small area in the back which makes the "10M" even smaller. To get accurate data, you would need a hole that has an accurate, lined 10M circle and only count the putts that are on or in the circle. In that case, a player's supporting points can be on or outside the circle giving more accurate information. Also, it would only be valid for that hole (slope, obstacles, etc.), under specific conditions (cold, wind, rain, etc.).

The accurate fact was the comparison between gold and blue levels with regard to putting accuracy on two different holes. The fuzzy fact was calling it 10M. Any inferences drawn from the comparison such as gold level players putt 87% inside the circle are inappropriately drawn.

I agree that the island data isn't exactly a 10m radius circle at either Winthrop or Highbridge. In theory, the data is only accurate for that specific shape on those days. What it does show is some confirmation that the real world putting info of 1.13 fits within the expectations from the graphically derived SSA factor of 1.7 for shots around the green. If the putting data for Winthrop 17 was say 1.85, then the model being developed would have severe issues. As it is, the data fits perfectly within the course metrics model being developed by the synergy of player and course SSA ratings.

The other interesting aspect from analyzing the data from this hole is what percentage of Gold level players can hit this Winthrop 17 island green from 250 feet. It turns out to be 70%. So, if you're designing a 250 ft hole without OB, 87% of the 70% would be down in 2, 13% of that 70% would be down in 3, and let's say, worst case, that all of the 30% who missed the green took 3s (some might 3-putt which offsets those who might sink the putt). Added up, 61% get 2s and 39% get 3s for a projected scoring average of 2.4 on the hole. Checking the course designers Scoring Average chart for Gold level players on a 250 ft hole with sparse foliage, it predicts the average would be 2.4. I'd say that's a pretty good validation of the math with real world results.

This data can also help with design of multishot holes. If your landing area is about 250' from the pin, you would expect Gold level players to get down in about 2.4 shots if the approach is open. If there's an average amount of foliage on the approach, it might take players 2.7 to get down. This would yield a nice scoring spread and a 3.7 scoring average on a par 4 hole that's maybe 335 to a landing area and 250 to the pin for a 585 ft hole.

Chuck,
Do you have any plans to increase stat keeping in Augusta? For instance, I think it'd be insightful to have several stat holes per course. Of course drives could be measured on 2 open holes facing in opposite directions. I'd be very interested to see stats on 3-4 distinct types of par 3's. In each case a "green" could be marked (say 30 meters and in), as well as 10 and 15 meter lines.

I think we could all agree that we'd be interested to see how these numbers would pan out for each "type" of green as well as overall.

I think it would do course designers everywhere good to expand their concept of the "green", see how strokes spread from different distances from the basket and then work backwards to the approach or tee shot to design those shots so that a "good" shot gets on the "green" for a chance at a birdie and a probable par, a "great" shot gets within 15 meters, and a "bad" shot leaves 30meters+ and a potential bogey.

We're all aware that the possibility for three-putts is too rare in disc golf and I think there's room immediately surrounding the basket to add risk/reward, but I also think that designer "tunnel vision" on the tee and approach shots factors into this as well. Many disc golf holes are of the variety of "hit the gap - win a prize" with the prize being an unobstructed putt of 15 meters or less. I'd say that on a really good disc golf hole that discs should end up inside the 10meter line at most 20% of the time.

The stats I've done are on my own time. Others can step up if they wish and contribute to the pool of data. There's not a single hole I can think of for the Augusta Worlds, except maybe the drive on hole 18 at the Hippodrome, that has an open drive out to 475 or so where measurements could be made.

Perhaps someone could be persuaded to do some putt counting for a round or two. We could mark a putting area out to 50 feet radius possibly on Riverview 16.

My primary emphasis is designing holes with good scoring spread. Using techniques to increase putting challenge is part of this. But unless the terrain is available, it's expensive to do and doesn't increase scores as much as adding 50 feet to the hole if you need to increase the scoring average on a hole by 0.2.

Because making the basket smaller is not likely to happen, I'm moving toward guidelines that would encourage installing more baskets at different heights within a range. Mounds and dips already provide players with different height challenges. Not every site is blessed with elevation where you need it. I would like to see some baskets mounted from 1 foot lower to 3 feet higher than they are now so that flat sites can add to their putting challenge. The size of the target remains the same and the orange focus tape is what players aim at anyway.

We installed a basket in a pretty tall tree stump at Tyrrell Park. It made the rim of the basket about 5 1/2 feet from the ground and worked wonders in causing putting issues. At first glance it seemed too extreme to have it that high but once you played it, it was just fine. I know I have 3 and four putted on it my fair share of times and have seen people that putt a lot better then me do the same. Oddly enough, never got any complaints.

I have also been trying to scope out a good place to have a basket hang from a large tree branch. I have heard of somewhere that has one like that and would love to see a picture if anyone knows where to find one. This also seems extreme but looks can be decieving and I for one think these things are good additions that not only test the players but give holes something people never forget.

I've played hanging baskets at the Gran Canyon in FL, the Country Course in NC and on Nockamixon in PA at last year's Worlds. We have basket at Highbridge on the Woodland Greens course mounted in the fork of three 8" trunks growing out of the same base. The bottom of the basket is about at eye level. It works well but freaks some people out.

Adding 50 ft to the drive isn't always practical or even possible. What is practical and possible in different ways is to create an obstacle directly in front of the tee. Mike Hubie Hughes pioneered this design at Vista in Arizona. He had flat ground and very few trees. He put the tees in back of the trees taking everyone out of their comfort zone. If you were good at turnover flex shots backhand or sidearm, or rollers, you could get the hole. If all you had was a hyzer, you were out of luck. Even though the holes were relatively short, and had one or two trees, they were challenging and fair. Snapper Pierson lost a few trees to storms or disease. He took the dead trees and put them right back into the ground with a cement footing. There must by hundreds of ways to make short holes more difficult. Most of the fair ways to make short holes more challenging have to do with negotiating obstacles close to the tee. Narrow fairways can work, but they take lots of trees or other obstacles, and more often than not end up being very flukey.

Because making the basket smaller is not likely to happen, I'm moving toward guidelines that would encourage installing more baskets at different heights within a range. Mounds and dips already provide players with different height challenges. Not every site is blessed with elevation where you need it. I would like to see some baskets mounted from 1 foot lower to 3 feet higher than they are now so that flat sites can add to their putting challenge. The size of the target remains the same and the orange focus tape is what players aim at anyway.


Strongly agree with you there. Taking a small dropoff and putting a basket a couple feet higher can bring the three-putt into possibility. I like when a smart player can plan their approach to leave themselves with a uphill, downhill, or sidehill putt as their preference dictates. I still think it's important to have approaches where the smart play leaves a 40-50 footer and the aggressive play can get into trouble.

If I'm able to get to Augusta and decide not to play I'll definitely be down for some stat keeping.

I'm not suggesting that adding 50 feet is better. It's just an easier, less expensive option to increase scoring average if you can't afford to landscape a green area.

Here's the Highbridge elevated tree hole. The camera angle makes it look higher than it really is. Retrieving the disc is easy from the back side of the basket where the ground is up higher.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/wg17%20basket.jpg

I like it. I invision alot of people trying the bank shot on that hole.

It works. Someone told me they had actually seen Barry practicing bank shots, not related to this specific hole, but just as a skill he might need sometime.

I'm not suggesting that adding 50 feet is better. It's just an easier, less expensive option to increase scoring average if you can't afford to landscape a green area.

Here's the Highbridge elevated tree hole. The camera angle makes it look higher than it really is. Retrieving the disc is easy from the back side of the basket where the ground is up higher.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/wg17%20basket.jpg


I bet Dave can find something immediately wrong with this hole. ;) :D

I bet Dave can find something immediately wrong with this hole.



Nothing to hold its pants up?? ;):D

<font color="lightgrey"> Or protect it's virginity. </font>

Wow,
I must be really conservative.
I would have to STRONGLY dissagree with adjusting the heights of the bakets.
Disc golf needs respect and credibility and I'm pretty sure this idea loses in both areas.
I may have to start another poll :D

First off disc golf needs to be FUN and challenging. Some places on earth just dont have the land and foliage to test certain aspects of the game like uphill and downhill putting. I am sure you would not be opposed to the idea of bringing in dirt to make a large mound to put a basket on, correct? How about digging out a ditch to put a basket on the slope of to get a down hill effect on the putt? These challenges are part of the game. Putting uphill and downhill are part of this game, by raising/lowering the basket you get the same effect without the hassle and cost of bringing in dirt etc. It just looks alittle different.

Target designers and manufactures should really become more imaginative and inventive in their future designs.

Certainly we should have standards that everyone must abide, but I am not ready to sign off on the polehole as the end all target of our sport.

Here are a few of the challenges with them:

1) They are butt ugly.
2) They do not function consistantly.
3) Installation and care for them is too much work.
4) They are way too expensive to help grow the sport.
5) They are too complicated.
6) They break too easily.
7) They do not look like a sports target, but more like the "famous" bar-b-q range.

They'll have to do, but I hope designers and manufactures haven't given up the ghost yet on true innovation. It has been several years now since any significant advancement has been made, and lord knows there is plenty of room for that.

Personally I am not against trying to add a little dynamic to a green by elevating the target. It is less expensive than building a mound (with practically the same effect), and the puts as you get closer to it are even more intreging. I suppose that getting your disc out would be a certain challenge once you got above a certain height though.

(AIMO)

Target designers and manufactures should really become more imaginative and inventive in their future designs.

Certainly we should have standards that everyone must abide, but I am not ready to sign off on the polehole as the end all target of our sport.

Here are a few of the challenges with them:

1) They are butt ugly.
2) They do not function consistantly.
3) Installation and care for them is too much work.
4) They are way too expensive to help grow the sport.
5) They are too complicated.
6) They break too easily.
7) They do not look like a sports target, but more like the "famous" bar-b-q range.

They'll have to do, but I hope designers and manufactures haven't given up the ghost yet on true innovation. It has been several years now since any significant advancement has been made, and lord knows there is plenty of room for that.

Personally I am not against trying to add a little dynamic to a green by elevating the target. It is less expensive than building a mound (with practically the same effect), and the puts as you get closer to it are even more intreging. I suppose that getting your disc out would be a certain challenge once you got above a certain height though.

(AIMO)


I guess you havent heard about the Titan Pro-24.
They are made of 1/2" cold rolled steel, guaranteed against bending and breaking. We are using red 3 red polymer coated rings where the chain connects and a red reflective vinyl with a white the number at target area.
Far from ugly :cool:
We also have 4 unique design features thet are clearly improvements in the catching ability.

The anchor system is simplified by usingthe same size pole as sleeve, with the bottom 8 inches of the pole being swedged ( Crimped) both pieces have a through hole where a slightly longer shackle is slid throigh both and locked about 3 inches off the ground.

The price tag is still competitive at $400 each.

I'm not sure how you can say the installation is hard and that there is too much work to care for them.

We recently dug 81 holes in one day and poured the 27 posts and 54 sleeves the next.
It took 2 hours to haul them to the holes and lock them down!

I'm not suggesting that adding 50 feet is better. It's just an easier, less expensive option to increase scoring average if you can't afford to landscape a green area.

Here's the Highbridge elevated tree hole. The camera angle makes it look higher than it really is. Retrieving the disc is easy from the back side of the basket where the ground is up higher.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/wg17%20basket.jpg


I bet Dave can find something immediately wrong with this hole. ;) :D


Do you mean me?
I go by David and of course there is something wrong with this unless youre as high as the basket :D

I just analyzed round results from the last three years of ratings data and the "Around the Green" (ATG) factor has essentially remained constant at 30. Here's the data table for the original calculation that yielded 30 ATG and 285 for the average throw in average foliage.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Course Ratings</td><td>YEAR >></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Data Analysis</td><td>Pre-2003</td><td>2003</td><td>2004</td><td>2005
</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Course SSA Values</td><td>397</td><td>1054</td><td>1823</td><td>1332
</td></tr><tr><td>Linear Regression: Slope</td><td>304</td><td>313</td><td>327</td><td>312
</td></tr><tr><td>Linear Regression: Constant</td><td>31.2</td><td>31.0</td><td>31.7</td><td>31.5
</td></tr><tr><td>Graphically Adjusted: Slope</td><td>285</td><td>295</td><td>290</td><td>283
</td></tr><tr><td>Graphically Adjusted: Constant</td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>Courses with SSAs near Avg:</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Within +/- 2 throws</td><td>66%</td><td>59%</td><td>58%</td><td>55%
</td></tr><tr><td>Within 2 to 4 throws</td><td>27%</td><td>31%</td><td>32%</td><td>35%
</td></tr><tr><td>More than 4 throws</td><td>7%</td><td>10%</td><td>10%</td><td>10%
</td></tr><tr><td>Courses: More Woods than Avg.</td><td>45%</td><td>43%</td><td>39%</td><td>43%
</td></tr><tr><td>Courses: Less Woods than Avg.</td><td>55%</td><td>57%</td><td>61%</td><td>57%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

You can see how 90% of all courses have SSAs that fall within +/- 4 throws of the SSA calculated for average foliage. Only the most open or heavily wooded courses have SSAs more than 4 shots from the average foliage formula value for SSA. We now have much 3-4 times more data each year than when I first did the calculations.

Here are the graphs that show each of the last three years visually. The bottom chart for 2005 also shows what the lines look like for the most open courses possible and the most wooded courses we've seen yet. (Any more wooded and there wouldn't be fairways.) You can see how all of our data falls within this open to heavy foliage envelope.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/ssa%20formula%20update.jpg

Some of you may remember we changed the SSA formula slightly for courses with SSAs more than 50 because players were feeling the ratings weren't right. If you compare the data for the longest courses in the top chart for 2003, with the longest courses in the middle chart for 2004, you'll see how the factor change has now made the values better distributed above and below the line compared with the old factor in 2003 (and before) when most of them were above the line.

Those are some cool graphs, Chuck. They do state what your saying remarkably well. If I'm interpreting you right, the constant is the around the green number of throws which is virtually the same from course to course. This affects how high or low your average foilage line is.

If we used a contant of 36 instead of 30, couldn't we adjust the foliage factor? Are you saying that if you did that, the courses wouldn't be such a best fit between your estimated SSA's for heavy and light foliage?

Here's a few posts I didn't get the chance to comment on...



Warning :BRAINSTORMING:

What would happen to the SSA, and by extension, if you raised the "around the green" number and reduced the footage factor by about the same percentage?




That is what I am wodering. It would be a very convenient simplification (and useful for design) if greens could be considered the area where players average 2.0 shots.




I'm not using any particular distance for putting. I just happened to have comparative putting data for Gold versus Blue level players on greens about the same size as our 10m putting circle. It's apparent that shots farther than 10m qualify for putts because Gold players averaged 1.13 within a 10m circle and they average 1.5-1.7 shots around the green overall. Some of that 0.37-0.57 gap would include putts from 10m to say 15m depending on how far we want to call a throw a putt versus a "chip shot."




I've heard this a few ways and I still don't understand it. WHERE DID 1.7 COME FROM? If "no particular" distance was used to determine this putting average, where did this number come from? Greens aren't defined, so around the green is very undefined. If these numbers consider everything that isn't a drive to be a putt, it would suggest that 1.0 would be added to 1.7 to creat 2.7 shots per hole or SSA 48.6. If this is the case, our 1.7 standard is encouraging bad hole design.




Well that explains the Gold ratings. 1.13 inside 10M is ridiculously good. I think I might be 1.7 inside 10M. Anyway, putts are putts, no matter how far they are. You are on the "green" when you decide you are. When you take a putting stance and execute a putt, you are putting. I don't know what ball golf does with the stats when a ball golfer decides to putt from off their defined green, but we don't have a defined green. Many times we don't even have defined fairways. That and variety of course design and shot selection are the main differences between the two golfs, ours and theirs. That makes statistics much more difficult for us. Greens in regulation? Fairways in regulation? Forget about it. Average shots per hole for designated skill levels is a fact. After that, things get real fuzzy.



I agree. Most players consider the green to be 10m. I've seen putt mulligans sold at Ice Bowls that were only good for putting and putting was only if you were inside the circle. Some players use putters from 300+ feet out. The best definition I can come up for putting is a shot that has a greater than average potential of going in, but is designed so that the next shot will be easily made. Putting is a type of shot that is designed to be basket high when it passes the target, but slow and calculated enough so that the next shot is short enough to be made with fair certainty. Basically, the flight path of a putter disc. A much simpler definition would be where a skill level averages 2 shots or less. In ball golf, sometimes the pin is located near the edge of the green instead of the center. Therefore there are a few times when shots off the green would average less than 2 shots. Never the less, if you defined greens as the area where players average 2 shots (not 1!), it would be a good tool for designing holes, just like hole SSA is. It would also be a great motivation to make greens harder in order to reduce their size.




Raising our putting challenge would make our metrics closer to ball golf. Contrary to what some might think, our courses in the 54-58 SSA range are closer to the drive/putt balance in ball golf than courses over 60 SSA like Winthrop Gold courses. Our high SSA courses have much more emphasis on driving than ball golf courses. If we made putting tougher, we would boost the SSA without having to make courses longer and our shot balance would be closer to ball golf, that's presuming that emulating their balance is a worthwhile goal.



Again, it all depends on what you consider a putt. On a typical disc golf course, I make twice as many putts as I do drives. That seems like putting would be more heavy on the disc golf side rather than golf.





Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Par 54 disc golf is about 2/3rds putting and par 72 disc golf is more like 1/2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Putting on par 54-58 DG courses is about the same percentage as on a par 72 ball golf course. DG courses over SSAs of 58 or so become more and more driving biased than ball golf. Unless our putting challenge is increased, courses with SSAs around 66 become a reasonable high limit, and SSAs of 72 mostly become driving ranges. Reread my earlier posts that show the difference in the metrics between the two sports and Chappy's analysis.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all NT events were played on par 70 -72 style course it could hurt attendance right now
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad move not due to attendance but because these courses are imbalanced toward driving versus putting skill.

My experience with good par 70 style courses is that exphasis is put on UPSHOTS, meaning full mid-range shots. When a decent drive and good upshot is executed, a player expects to land an average of 35 feet from the basket. This in turn puts an emphasis on PUTTING when comparing to par 3 holes that aren't reachable or are easy lay-ups. Driving is important on par 70 courses, but these style courses should be based more on landing area strategy than length. Basically, everything is more important on a par 70 style course. This kind of course exercises your complete game!



Chuck,
I suggested a range of 62-72. You don't think designers or players would prefer over par 68. I don't really like below par 65. I actually do prefer pars in that range (65-68).

I think it's much more important that the course par be reasonably close to wcp than the course par match our favorite # (66,68,69 dude).

I do think you're right about players wanting to "get their deuces", but I think that's part of the growing pains as we move away from par 54 disc golf. I've never heard Tiger Woods say, "I drove well, hit my irons well, putted well, shot 65, but I only made one 2 and don't feel quite satisfied."



As far as WCP being close to the course par, this is very true. Why do you want the course par to be an unknown amount higher than the SSA for the division to which the course was designed for?

As far as whether a par 62 is better or worse than a 72...I'm seeing points to both sides. Par 3's even the playing field more by forcing the same approach shot on everybody. When it's a really cool shot, this can be a good thing. Imagine though, for a minute, a hole that is say 2000' long and plays through a huge variety of terrain and elevations with many, many different routes to the hole to choose from, through thicker than average woods, but varying throughout. Strategy would be key. If the paths required a lot of twisting and turning, players who threw full powered drives on every shot would be punished. It wouldn't be all brains either, cause you still have to make the shots. It is true that this kind of hole totally reduces the putting ratio, but it would be fine on courses that average 2 shots or less to get to within 100' of the hole.




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In DG, we can have tee shots that are open, tight, straight, left, right, uphill, downhill and cross hill fairways along with lengths that range from using putters to drivers and possible OB. And, of course, any combination of these items might be available. This is way beyond the options in BG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true and another of the many reasons I love disc golf. There is nothing in what you just said, however, that is exclusive to par 3 tee shots.

Aces are cool, so are 2's on 650 ft. holes, and 3's on 1000 ft. holes.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes there is. All competitors are faced with a shot from the same position unlike any fairway throw. And everyone watching the pros can try the same throw when they play the course. Most other players in the world will not be making their second throw on a par 4 or 5 from where Brinster's drive lands, for example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone faces the same tee shot on a hole regardless of the par. Yes, they will face different shots for their second shots and that's a good thing. That's where the beauty of the extra strategy involved with par 4's and 5's comes in.

I do think the great disc golf elements that you've attributed to par 3 holes should be used for tee shots on 4's and 5's as well. I do not think that "driving range" power should be a huge advantage at the highest level of the game. Every course should have a few shots that say, "hey kid, you think you got arm? Give it a try, maybe make an eagle, but if you don't make it you're staring double bogey or worse in the face!"

If all holes are designed well to require a variety of shot shapes and lengths, while sometimes giving controlled power extra risk/reward options then a course with a higher par will give the best players more opportunities to display their skills and separate them from the field.

I'm certainly not going to cry that there are too many par 3's on a par 65 course, it's still way better (assuming a good design) than par 54. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I haven't seen any reason that par 65 is inherently superior to par 70.

On the best golf courses there are usually one or two "postcard" par 3's. These are holes like #17 at Pebble Beach or TPC Sawgrass where you stand on the tee, look at the green and say, "this hole rules!". Par 3's and 5's are cool and have their place, but if I had to pick one par that all holes would be, it would be par 4.




Right on! I enjoyed both sides of this discussion.




Chuck,
I read about the calculations on the island green, but thats not a very good corrilation.



The thing that sticks out to me in this situation is that you are taking the average number of puts inside 10 m, but the distance away from the pin per shot is not average. If it was completly random, discs would average something like 23 foot out from the hole. The closer you put the tees to the green in this case, the closer the average shot is going to be to the pin. I'm not saying they necessarily should be random, just that the shot requirement will dictate, to a certain degree, the putting average, despite the consistent size of the green.



Strongly agree with you there. Taking a small dropoff and putting a basket a couple feet higher can bring the three-putt into possibility. I like when a smart player can plan their approach to leave themselves with a uphill, downhill, or sidehill putt as their preference dictates. I still think it's important to have approaches where the smart play leaves a 40-50 footer and the aggressive play can get into trouble.



This is why elevation around the green makes a hole so much better. In my opinion, putting trees on the green is good to. Not to make it so difficult that you don't have a putt, just something that leaves a straddle putt for the careless upshot.




The analysis from thousands of rounds on over 150 courses showed that there are no more than 30 shots per round (+/-2) around the green on an 18-hole course. That's no more than 1.7 shots around the green on average per hole. The putting average HAS to be less than that number for Gold level players.



Where does the 30 shots around the green come from?
:D

If we used a contant of 36 instead of 30, couldn't we adjust the foliage factor? Are you saying that if you did that, the courses wouldn't be such a best fit between your estimated SSA's for heavy and light foliage?




You don't "choose" the factor. The data determines the factor. The ball golf factor for their data is about 41. If we inserted a value of 36 or 41 into our formula and adjusted the average drive factor from 285 to match up, the values would be 405 and 615, respectively. We know intuitively that our average throw, which includes approach shots, is not 405 feet and certainly not 615 feet. So, you can't just say you want the "around the green" factor to what you want and manipulate the math to force it to work. It will have no connection to the real world.

The only way to increase the "around the green" putting factor is to make putting more difficult, most likely by manipulating the basket in some way. If that were done, what would happen is that each data point in the graph would move vertically the same amount say 6 to 10 shots. The slope of the line wouldn't change because we didn't affect anything pertaining to average throw length.

BTW, the 1.7 per hole for around the green shots is just the 30 ATG factor for the whole course divided by 18 (30/18 = 1.67 ~ 1.7).

My experience with good par 70 style courses is that exphasis is put on UPSHOTS, meaning full mid-range shots. When a decent drive and good upshot is executed, a player expects to land an average of 35 feet from the basket. This in turn puts an emphasis on PUTTING when comparing to par 3 holes that aren't reachable or are easy lay-ups. Driving is important on par 70 courses, but these style courses should be based more on landing area strategy than length. Basically, everything is more important on a par 70 style course. This kind of course exercises your complete game!



thank you.