Par on holes

[TexasOutlaw]

I was going to post this on the other par thread, but it appears to have changed scope.

Do y'all play all holes as par 3? Years ago, some of the players had "rules" on what par was based on the length of the holes; I used to know this.

Today, I am told that for tournaments, all holes are played as 3's, and of course everyone wants to play tournament rules. Is this accurate?

[adidadg]

Yes in a lot of cases, particularly in tournaments all holes are played as Par 3, I think this is just for simplicity's sake. It might have something to do with a lot of courses out there that dont have proper signage or a posted Par anywhere, so saying everything is a "3" puts everybody in the same boat.

But by the definition of par it really makes no sense to call a 800 foot hole a par 3

[presidio hills]

hole 9 at stafford lake, in novato california, is something like 950' when it's short and 1050' when it's long. it goes down a very wide open meadow with one big tree near the tee and one big tree about 200' feet short of the short pin position. i think it decends about 12' throughout the length of the hole. people can still hit it in 3 on rare occasion... 4 is probably what pros would need to get to stay with the pack. even still, all the locals and tournaments played there mark it as a par 3.
the first hole there, when it's long... is 495' in length and ascends 99'. i've even heard of people birdieing that hole. for most mortals a 3 is damn good...
in any case, if even the toughest holes out there are achieved in 3 or 4 strokes by pros... it makes sense to just keep it all 'par 3' and let getting a 3 or 4 just mean gaining a stroke on the pack.
this seems to make sense for disc golf, but not as much ball golf. perhaps, because we can hit the basket from far out more often than they can get it in the hole from far out.

[TexasOutlaw]

About the only time it matters is when I play with others and they ask if I made par.

The first time I played after a year or so off due to personal problems. I got into an argument with an individual who I'm sure is outstanding but chose to engage in controlled substances that day. I was accused of cheating on the 500+ hole because I called it a par when it should have been a bogie.

Though it's an isolated incident, every time I hear people talk about par, it comes to mind.

For casual rounds, I don't really worry about the score anyway.

[krusen]

For casual rounds, I don't really worry about the score anyway.

Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.

[sleepy]

Cinderella story here at Augusta; the kid's got about 455 yards. He's gonna hit about a 2 iron, don't you think?





sleepy

[Blake_T]

i generally reference par in this manner:

if a hole can be reached (yielding a 35' or less putt) within 2 controlled and gimmick free 330' perfect drives, it is a par 3 or lower. so say, a 650-700' wide open hole would be a par 3. a 900' hole in the wide open would be a par 4.

however, if there are gimmicks involved, such as a 300' Z shaped fairway on a tight tunnel shot with a blocked canopy that requires 3 100' throws to reach it, that would be a par 4.

i also believe in par 2's as it is the only way to keep scores meaningful.

if a course has 18 650' holes vs. 18 100' holes, the second course should have a much lower par than the first.

[Fritz]

i generally reference par in this manner:

if a hole can be reached (yielding a 35' or less putt) within 2 controlled and gimmick free 330' perfect drives, it is a par 3 or lower. so say, a 650-700' wide open hole would be a par 3. a 900' hole in the wide open would be a par 4.

however, if there are gimmicks involved, such as a 300' Z shaped fairway on a tight tunnel shot with a blocked canopy that requires 3 100' throws to reach it, that would be a par 4.

i also believe in par 2's as it is the only way to keep scores meaningful.

if a course has 18 650' holes vs. 18 100' holes, the second course should have a much lower par than the first.

I totally agree. I'd liek to see holes added that are Par 4, there are some courses here in CO that have some Monster holes. Pueblo for example Hole #9 is almost some 750-800feet. You shoot for a 4 on that hole and you are happy with it. Sometimes ya get lucky and weave your disc thru the trees (pines) and you make it up there with a fairly good shot at par...

Par 2's would rock. anything less then say 175 should be a par 2. That would make some scores and courses a hole different monkey.

[adidadg]

i dunno, imo any hole that should be a par 2, probably shouldnt even be a hole in the first place, at least on any half decent course....

[redspexxx]

huntsville alabama, Redstone Arsenal course. hole number 8. 2 basket positions, the short position is 822 ft and the long is 1136 ft. its a par 4

here is a layout of the course.
http://www.davidhunt.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=245[/url]

[Blake_T]

i dunno, imo any hole that should be a par 2, probably shouldnt even be a hole in the first place, at least on any half decent course....

that is a bold statement to make. assuming par is calculated based upon the average outcome of a 1000 rated golfer, you have to remember that a 1000 rated golfer is much better than most players.

if a hole is 160' with an 8' wide tunnel fairway, 15' high ceiling, and super thick rough on both sides, nearly every 1000 rated pro will park it every time. however, the majority of rec players will probably par/bogey.

most players would agree that a wide open 275' hole probably plays easier than this hole, however, the 275' is more likely to play as a par 3 since it's harder to be accurate at 275' than 160'.

i find difficult, finesse short holes often to be the great leveller. that 160' hole will let a super accurate pro that peaks at 360' compete with a 500' throwing pro that lacks the finesse game.

one of my favorite holes is a 160' hole at a local course. it's a 4' wide fairway cut through the woods that goes ~70' straight and then banks left about 60 degrees another 90' and there's sloping ground downwards and an ob creek about 10' behind the basket.

considering that over 95% of the 1000+ rated pros are right handed, chances are this would calculate out as a par 2, but this is honestly the hardest hole on the course if you are left handed.

i find it odd that if this hole were mirrored with a bank in the opposite direction that it would likely calculate as a par 3, simply because of the righty/lefty factor.

[TexasOutlaw]

I try to play my local course as it was marked when it was first built and had signs. There were 2 holes that were 4's: a 400 ft dog leg right and a 550 wide open hole (other than some trees about the place you would want to turn it over to flex it).

It really wasn't an issue until a few years ago where it actually caused an altercation as I didn't realize the local disc club was playing them as 3's.

I do good to par these on my good days, mostly I bogey them. There have been days when I finish way under par and some when I'm over; to me, the fun factor is the same. As a recreational player, it is not as important to me.

I do have games where I think I should start doing tournaments, but I fear it would suck the fun from the game for me.

[adidadg]

Par is not really a measure of how tough a hole or course is or the average strokes it takes, it is a measure of how many shots it "should" take to finish a hole. I think we would both agree that say a 250 foot fairly open hole and a 375 foot uphill hole should both be a par 3...does that mean that they are the same difficulty? of course not. There is always going to be easy par 3's and tough par 3's, and even if a hole is very parkable, the set par should still allow for a 2-putt.

[Blake_T]

i believe par should mean something.

if it is a measure of how many shots it "should" take, then who is the should?

for a 1000+ rated pro, they should deuce the 250' wide open hole 95% or more of the time. it may take a blind man with no arms and no legs 60+ strokes to complete the same hole.

to me, using the pro as a baseline is the measure of "should" for as of now, it is the only measure we have of the playability of holes and overall player scoring and is consistent with SSA/WCP.

i've had 2 home courses, one of them my personal best was -10, the other my personal best is -2.

if the actual par of my -10 was compared to the actual par of my -2, i believe they would have been about the same, which is to me, the way it should be as it is the only really meaningful way to compare scoring across regions.

[adidadg]

I agree that would be nice, but In order for par to be used in that fashion, Decimals would probably have to be used...and who wants to say they shot 6 and three quarters under today

Even if there was par 2's, would that make every Par 54 course of the exact same difficulty? no, This is why there are course ratings.

By "should", I am not referring to a skill level, I am referring to the design of the hole, and how many strokes that hole was designed to be completed in. And taking after ball golf, holes generally follow this fashion:
Par 3 - 1. Drive 2. Approach/Putt 3.Putt
Par 4 - 1. Drive 2. Drive/Approach 3. Approach/Putt 4. Putt
and so on...

Like i said Par is not a measure of how many strokes it takes a pro to hole out on average, Its how many strokes the hole was designed to be completed in. If they beat it then its a deserved birdie, even if they beat it every time.

I guess what we disagree on is the definition of Par itself, but theres nothing wrong with some healthy debate