OK....For the most part, I like the idea of all par 3's. For a year or so, my home course was Tom Bass in Pearland, TX..just outside of h-town. The Wilmont course has several LONG holes....1000+ ft hole along with 900+ and 800+ holes.

I'm just curious what are the rules/standards that define par. Why do some courses have holes that are par 4 and 5?

Hep me please!

Not all holes are par 3. Click here (http://www.tydaniels.com/what-par-is/) for more information on par.

From the PDGA Roolbook:

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.

Alot of people argue about what close range throws mean. We define what putting range is I think the definition of par should be rewritten to say "two close range putts" so there is less arguing over par.

: ) :

We define what putting range is I think the definition of par should be rewritten to say "two close range putts" so there is less arguing over par.


That would not be expert play in disc golf. If it were changed to "one close range putt," then we woud have expert play.

but expert play is under par, so the rule allows one extra putt per hole from an expert to determine par. It's basically perfect plus one on every hole.

and here we go again :D

works for me, i just think it needs to be clearly stated. we need the ability to define par. and as long as it is clearly stated I dont care if we do have par 2s. this isn't ball golf it's disc golf we can do whatever the hell we wont to do with the sport.

: ) :

i think i just found the PDGAs new motto

: ) :

Keeping in mind that the only time par actually applies is when you're late arriving and miss one or more holes.

Otherwise, it's mostly psychological. We call holes par-4 or par-5 to indicate how difficult they are or what a good score on that hole might be. We don't call holes par-2, though we still think of them that way ("I've screwed up if I don't get a 2 on this hole").

All-par-3 gives a shorthand for keeping score without remembering what the designated par was on each hole.

In the end, it's the total number of throws that matters.

Keeping in mind that the only time par actually applies is when you're late arriving and miss one or more holes.



Not true. Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par_(score)) to find out why par is important to the game of golf.

Keeping in mind that the only time par actually applies is when you're late arriving and miss one or more holes.


So when we do live scoring for lead groups on courses like Winthrop, we should just have every hole as par 3? ;)

Keeping in mind that the only time par actually applies is when you're late arriving and miss one or more holes.



Not true. Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par_(score)) to find out why par is important to the game of golf.


This is a disc golf discussion board... and until we have more course designers stick to the rules of golf par, we can't apply them uniformly to our sport. It's unfortunate, but true.

Yeah, you're right....how can "par" in golf possibly relate to "par" in disc golf?

that sarcasm is unnecessary. If you'll read the links you posted, you'll see that you posted info about how par governs course design in golf. Most of the time, that does not hold true for disc golf.

You are making the mistake of assuming that concepts in ball golf can be directly applied to disc golf. Par is a good example of one that cannot. At least not until we have the money and the number of experienced course designers to implement standards for par. Just because we have a (tragically) loose implementation of a golf standard does not mean that you can quote golf literature and expect it to apply here.

What is par?



As a 971 rated player, I think of par this way. If you are playing a hole where you can get to the basket in 1 shot fairly easily, then it is most likely a par 3. If the hole requires 2 well executed shots to get to the basket, then it is most likely a par 4. If it requires 3 well executed shots (250+ feet), then it is most likely a par 5.

But there are many other factors involved as well. Such as how wooded the hole is, or how much elevation is on the hole. You can play a course with a 550 foot hole that is wide open, and it doesn't matter where your drive lands, you still get a 3 90% of the time you play the hole. But if this 550 foot hole is heavily wooded with lots of rough on the side, a bad shot may be punished where you are fighting hard to save a 3, and might even take a 4 or higher more than 50% of the time. Now for these 2 holes, you may have the open hole as a par 3 and the wooded hole as a par 4.

I think it is vary important to design courses with par 3's, 4's and 5's. It is this kind of disc golf that makes people better players and allows for the designing of great disc golf courses. I am one of the designers of Moraine State Park and we take great pride in the fact that our course is considered a true par 66 course and that the statistics from the tournaments from over the past 3 years have concluded that our tees are set up as 1000 rated par 66 for Gold tees and a 950 rated par 66 for the Blue tees. We have 2 par 5's and a handful of par 4's. Now just about every par 4 on the course could possibly have someone getting a 2 on the hole, but on the average, the holes all consistently yield an average near a 4 from a pool of 1000 rated payers. So, if you ask me, if the pros are averaging a 4 on a hole, and the tees are designed for 1000 rated players, then the par for the hole should be a 4. even though it may only be a 390 foot hole, it is a realistic and honest par 4. Check out these Course Stats from the last few events at Moraine State Park. Now there is no way you can call this 18 hole course a par 54 with all par 3's!! As you can see, the par 66 holds true for the 1000 rated golds and the 950 rated blues. http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-co...ort_ascending=0 (http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course?RatingCourseID=3004&sort_style=SSA&sort_asc ending=0)

Now the more you play these courses with true par 4's and 5's you learn to accept the fact that the hole may really be a par 4 and not a par 3 like you have played every other round you have ever played before. If you can accept that the hole is a par 4 or 5, and not a 3, you start to learn how to play golf, and how to manage a hole. If you are trying t bomb the hole and get that 3, you might end up with a 5 or 6, whereas the player who breaks down the hole and knows what 2 well executed shots it will take to get to the green, may well be the one who gets the birdie 3 on the hole.


As a player for over 14 years, be gone Par 54

Keeping in mind that the only time par actually applies is when you're late arriving and miss one or more holes.


So when we do live scoring for lead groups on courses like Winthrop, we should just have every hole as par 3? ;)



Or just post the actual numbers.

Admittedly, I was thinking only from a rules viewpoint and a player's viewpoint. Par may be convenient for our fans, all 7 of them. It still has little bearing on the competition itself, so arguments of the definition of par, or the definition of words in the official definition of par, aren't worth a great deal of effort to me. We just want to make sure the player late for the grueling 1000' hole is penalized proportionately to the one late for a 150' ace-run hole.

Agreed that the concept of par is of value in course design---creating holes in which players of a certain ability should expect to need 2 or 3 long shots, with careful placement, to reach the basket. And the more of these, the better. Not so concerned from a rules perspective, though.

You are making the mistake of assuming that concepts in ball golf can be directly applied to disc golf. Par is a good example of one that cannot. At least not until we have the money and the number of experienced course designers to implement standards for par. Just because we have a (tragically) loose implementation of a golf standard does not mean that you can quote golf literature and expect it to apply here.



I think you are mistaken in your assumption of my assumption. :)

General definition of Par:

Par is a predetermined number of strokes that a golfer should require to complete a hole.

There are obvious variations to the definition of the word, however, the concept of par is essentially the same when it comes to the game of golf in general. The differential between ball golf and disc golf comes down to the putting green. Ball golf defines par for a specific hole as including two putts once a player is on the green. The PDGA defines par as "errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two close range throws to hole-out". As previously pointed out, "two close range throws" in disc golf can simply be two putts or an approach shot followed by one putt. From a dg design standpoint, what I think we can agree on is the need for the PDGA's definition of a "close range throw".

The six member design crew of the Lakeview DGC at Moraine State Park incorporated the "green center" concept which is used exclusively in ball golf design. I am unaware of any ball golf course where the par changes relative to where the cup is located on the green. That is not the case for many disc golf holes as the par does change in regard to pin location. The Lakeview course at Moraine has three pin placements per hole and the designers purposely selected pin positions which would allow for varying levels of difficulty without compromising the designated par for each respective hole. That said, this "green center" concept is identical to general ball golf course design.

it sounds like the design implemented at Moraine is a good one. Unfortunately, too many disc golf courses are designed more like putt-putt courses than ball golf courses.

I think I agree with how you think par *should* be applied to disc golf. I think our sport would be much better for it. I do not, however, agree that the concept is applicable to the current state of things. Would that it were, my friend.

More designed like executive par 3 courses than putt-putt curses. I don't see many windmills or waterfalls on the courses. Then again, I was raised near Myrtle Beach - a well known hotbed (http://www.golflink.com/miniature-golf/city.aspx?dest=Myrtle+Beach+SC) of over the top putt-putt courses.

my local putt-putt doesn't have any windmills or waterfalls... just par 3 holes that can be easily holed in 2, with a lot of aceruns :D

my personal figure is if i can play a hole(921)rated with a midrange and t off and approach and put that is a below average skill leval par three.
if i have to t off and throw allong approach the a long putt then that is a average par three.
if a hole can be done in two throws including the putt then i had better do just that if i expect to stay in the hunt for a win against the feild.
there is not an important number what the course designer thinks the course stroke count will be. as the world class players and the upper leval advanced players are showing that they are playing most tournys well under projected par.
the average player may be able to score par on his better days and under par on a great day.
when i count the strokes ive thrown i dont account for par i just count the strokes par doesnt matter at that point.
when the round is over i hope that i missed more trees than the next guy and made more putts as that is how good scores are achieved, par doesnt matter then

bravo, par most certainly does matter when it comes to course design. In fact, that is one of the only times it really matters. A designer should attempt to create a hole that requires X number of good shots to complete the hole. If it requires the average player (of the intended skill level for the tee in question) one throw, regardless of the type of disc, to reach the putting area, then it is a par 3. If it requires two, it is a par 4. Three shots makes it a par 5. Designing holes with these standards in mind is how good course designers create good courses.

How you play your game is a completely separate matter :). Par is really about the intended scoring average of a hole. It doesn't affect how you add your score, but if you score better than the intended average... you are playing below par.

I think the biggest problem with par in relation to disc golf is the sheer number of courses that have been created without a real regard for par. As Mr. Duke said, the overwhelming majority of our courses are laid out like executive ball golf courses. The ones that are designed like championship courses (with a good mix of par 3, 4, and 5 holes) are the ones that will bring Disc Golf to the next level.

i agree that there is a need for the chalenging courses.
there also is the need to maintain the not so chalenging courses as that is where we all started and where the future world champions will start.

The ones that are designed like championship courses (with a good mix of par 3, 4, and 5 holes) are the ones that will bring Disc Golf to the next level.



There are many more championship courses out there with those characteristics than you might think. However, you need to be throwing Super Class discs to recognize them. :D

We define what putting range is I think the definition of par should be rewritten to say "two close range putts" so there is less arguing over par.


That would not be expert play in disc golf. If it were changed to "one close range putt," then we woud have expert play.

it is expert play if the definition of "close range" is set accordingly. say, abnout 125-150 feet.

i cant believe the official PDGA version of par is Close Range Par!

Sawing 5 inches off of your drivers doesn't make a ball golf course any better. Using blunt edge discs doesn't make disc courses any better.

Though in many cases it is just using the appropriate hardware for the course. I have to believe that many of the older courses were designed when 300' was a really long throw.

Using blunt edge discs doesn't make disc courses any better.


That makes no sense, especially from a designer. Holes are designed based on how far the discs can be thrown for a skill level. That's a primary factor that produces scoring spread, or not, especially on more open holes. If a hole is a dog aesthetically, it will still look ugly playing it with Super Class discs. But at least you may not always get the same score on it.

I think his point was that distance is not the only reason many courses are becoming obsolete.

I personnaly believe that par for a hole should be determined by play. Typically I will calculate par as the average score a 1000 rated player would shoot on a hole.

i think gary means that using blunts does not bring courses up to the more modern standards.

"Holes are designed based on how far the discs can be thrown for a skill level."

btw, thats make only partial sense at best, especially from a designer. on a well designed course accuracy is just as much at a premium, if not more so. the fact that distance is the biggest determinant on some courses does not mean thats how holes are/should be designed. it might be that its a crappy, or not quite as good as possible, design.

For any given hole, changing the length that a group of players can throw will change the scoring average. Makes no difference whether it's a treed corridor or wide open. That's not relevant to the discussion at hand. The best designed par 3 course for bevel discs that has hills, trees and water hazards can still play better or worse depending on the discs that can be used.

it might change the scoring average, but how will it affect the spread?

I personnaly believe that par for a hole should be determined by play. Typically I will calculate par as the average score a 1000 rated player would shoot on a hole.


that's really the hole's SSA. a valuable stat, but not a viable substitute for par. SSA plus one gets closer... but also par should be based on the intended skillset. If you're talking about gold tees, then using 1000-rated players makes sense. Even then, I think you gotta go SSA plus one to have a meaningful par. At least round it up to the nearest whole number.

Take hole #2 (long) on your blue course. I'd be willing to bet that the average score for that hole, amongst all the 1000-rated players at your most recent event, was about 4.5. Round that up to 5 and you have a decent par. BTW - long #2 on the blue course is in my top 5 favorite DG holes... all of which are true par 5 :D

it might change the scoring average, but how will it affect the spread?


If will affect it if it's a hole with average to lighter foliage. If it's wooded then the scoring average will change but the standard deviation of the spread could be the same. Although a hole might move from a tweener average closer to a round number, or vice versa.

I mean that a dog of a course where you can reach every basket off the tee is still a dog of a course when you can't reach every basket off the tee. Cutting driving distance off the tee does not make a bad course better. However there are many good courses out there that were designed with blunt edge discs in mind that play better using the equipment they were designed for.

A TFA(three from anywhere) course won't be any better just because you can't easily reach the target off the tee. It is still likely a three from almost anywhere. The quality of the course does not improve just because the scores are higher using shorter range discs.

I also believe that for non-tournament courses scoring separation should take a backseat to challenge and shot variety. The quality of a course can not be judged by average score and scoring separation alone, unless the course is designed primarily for tournament play.

I mean that a dog of a course where you can reach every basket off the tee is still a dog of a course when you can't reach every basket off the tee. Cutting driving distance off the tee does not make a bad course better.


Oh, but it most likely does. Unless you have a course with 18 holes between 280-300, blunt edge discs could make that course play better even if it's ugly. Typically, for a blue level course where all holes are reachable in the range from 200-335, the blunt edge discs could still have 1/3 to 1/2 reachable and the rest requiring two throws to reach with the second shot not an auto drop in 3. That's more scoring spread and it will be more of a challenge.

You still miss my meaning. A good course rewards good shots and punishes bad shots. Length is of little matter. I've played good short courses in some states that would play harder with super class discs, but not better.

I've also played courses with little or no obstacles that will not be improved no matter what you use to play them. You may get a higher score and probably a higher scoring spread because of wind, but the course is still no better.

the definition of better is simply the difference in the possitions above.the likely scoring spread with superclass disc will play tougher , by some definitions tougher is better. a great disc golfer may be a not so great superclass golfer therfore there may be some compression of players at the top that usually are not at the top,hence the compition is better for those than can play with that style of disc better

example of how a hole is improved by shortening throws (where i'm considering "improved" to mean having better scoring spread):
hole is 400 feet long and fairly open, average thrower throwing 300 feet with beveled discs gets a 3 every time (almost) because 100 foot upshot is so easy.

with a lid which you can only throw 220 it leaves a 180 foot upshot which will be much more difficult to make with the lid than the 100 footer is with the beveled disc. since the upshot becomes a shot that is more difficult to execute better scoring spread will be achieved.

example of how a hole is improved by shortening throws (where i'm considering "improved" to mean having better scoring spread):
hole is 400 feet long and fairly open, average thrower throwing 300 feet with beveled discs gets a 3 every time (almost) because 100 foot upshot is so easy.

with a lid which you can only throw 220 it leaves a 180 foot upshot which will be much more difficult to make with the lid than the 100 footer is with the beveled disc. since the upshot becomes a shot that is more difficult to execute better scoring spread will be achieved.



And the hole will play better because a good shot is rewarded.

My definition is simple. A good hole shows you what your options are, challenges you to execute the shot and punishes you if the shot is not on line. A very good hole has and option for safe par and risky birdies. An excellent hole has multiple options that reward and punish shots according to the scoring opportunity. The eagle shot is the hardest to execute and more punishing if messed up than the birdie which is tougher than the par.

A good course has several excellent holes, a handful of very good holes, and nothing below a good hole. Then make sure that there are not groups of holes that require or allow the same shot off of the tee in succession. I think the majority of the courses that Josh was referring to originally are wide open short courses that are not really improved by making them tougher by shortening the drives.

Golf is a mental game and improvements come from making the mental side of the course tougher, not the physical side.