Ask John Houck about Course Design & Development

[HouckDesign]

Hi, everybody,

Several DGCR users have asked if John could answer questions about course design. John is very touched by this request and would like to participate on this thread regularly in spite of his very busy schedule. As his business partner, I will be helping with this thread in getting the questions answered directly from him.

Please feel free to ask questions pertaining to course design, his courses, and course development. We are committed to promoting good course design principles and we will do our best to help you with the answers.

We are looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks for your support.

Dee & John Houck

[Apothecary]

has he designed any courses in southern california?

[Jukeshoe]

Houck designed my home course. Did a pretty good job considering what he had to work with. Glad we've got this thread and I'm looking forward to the discussion that goes down.

[Cgkdisc]

When is John going to play a PDGA event so he can get a player rating? :)

[billnchristy]

John-

Which design element is worse in your eyes:

The "walking trail" fairway
-or-
The "we didn't remove ANY trees" random fairway

Would you consider a course that has a scoring spread of 12-16 strokes for an average player a course with too much luck factor to be considered a good course?

[HouckDesign]

has he designed any courses in southern california?

So far no courses in Southern California. But John was born there and he'd love to do one!

Dee

[HouckDesign]

What's you home course? We don't have any courses in Indiana.

[All GUNKed up]

tell john a bunch of my friends ( the pastor guy) were up at his place a couple of days ago and raved about how he designed the several courses that they played on .

[HouckDesign]

When is John going to play a PDGA event so he can get a player rating? :)

Hey Chuck! Been there. Done that. John sends you a BIG hug.
So do I. He says, " Maybe when I turn 60." :-) Dee

[HouckDesign]

Thanks. Appreciate it. It was great to meet everybody. Dee

[fairweather_fan]

thank you both for taking the time to answer some of our questions! i've got a few off the top of my head to pose:

*do you have a preference for a certain mix of pars, if the land is available and fitting, such as 9 par 3s, 5 par 4s, and 4 par 5s (or some other combination)?

*how close, in general, do you believe to be 'too close' to have an O.B. area (water or otherwise) to a basket or green?

*what are a few courses by other designers that you hold in the highest regard?

thanks again...

[Three Putt]

What is John's view of a forced water carry in a public park setting. By water I'm not talking about a creek where you can reach down and pick up the disc, I'm talking deep or fast-moving water where a disc that does not make it over will be lost.

[Jukeshoe]

What's you home course? We don't have any courses in Indiana.

Creek Ridge in Michigan City, In.

Do you guys do signs for courses that have already been designed?

Our signs very clearly state that they were designed by Houck Design...:\

I took that to mean the course was designed by you, sorry if that is incorrect.

[jongoff09]

Great idea for a thread. I am looking forward to playing Cedar Glades in Hot Springs sometime. I wish he could do a course in or near my hometown (Cabot, AR). The city put in a small course for kids and said they would put a full course in later, but that hasn't happened. Maybe a designer like John would be able to get one put in around here.

[Marty McFly]

Tell John that I'm still mad about making hole 3 at Harry Myers 109304 feet long - (It's my favorite hole)

Actually if I only get to say one thing... Make it this: How can I grow a cool beard like John?

[sidewinding]

I can always tell it's a Houck designed course because on each and every hole there seems to be that one tree that is just in the right (wrong) place and forces a player to dig deeper. Even on holes with just one tree you always seem to design it with that tree in the perfect place. To me that is the genius in your design.

I have no question really. just an observation/compliment.

[DavidSauls]

How do you find fairways on heavily wooded, fairly featureless property?

I'm thinking, in this case, of the Jackson Course at IDGC, which may be the only Houck course I've played, and especially the rather level parts of it. How do you visualize an 800' hole when you can only see 80' through the woods? How do you take virtually a blank sheet and come up with a design?

I'm partly responsible for---some might say guilty of---designing one private course, where we could do it one hole at a time over several years and where there were all kinds of cool terrain features we could incorporate. Which is much, much easier. (And made easier by some of your articles I've read on course design).

[AdamH]

Is it bad to have holes that are par 3.5 or between par 3 and 4? Meaning only the the best of the best have a chance to deuce it, getting a 3 is nothing special and you feel like you screwed up when you card a 4? Thanks.

[WillACarpenter]

I'd like to ask John what he's got up his sleeve for the Rochester, NY area concerning the 2011 am worlds.

:)

\/\/

[Cgkdisc]

Could also be Gentry and my sleeves depending on John's schedule...

[solomon.trenton]

Is having a raised pin thats above someones head (i.e. Hornets nest) too gimicky?

[HouckDesign]

John-

Which design element is worse in your eyes:

The "walking trail" fairway
-or-
The "we didn't remove ANY trees" random fairway

Would you consider a course that has a scoring spread of 12-16 strokes for an average player a course with too much luck factor to be considered a good course?

Thanks for your question. John will have to get back to you on this one! It may take a few days as he is swamped right now. But he will respond

[HouckDesign]

tell john a bunch of my friends ( the pastor guy) were up at his place a couple of days ago and raved about how he designed the several courses that they played on .

He read your email and we are glad that your friends enjoyed the ranch. Dee

[HouckDesign]

thank you both for taking the time to answer some of our questions! i've got a few off the top of my head to pose:

*do you have a preference for a certain mix of pars, if the land is available and fitting, such as 9 par 3s, 5 par 4s, and 4 par 5s (or some other combination)?

*how close, in general, do you believe to be 'too close' to have an O.B. area (water or otherwise) to a basket or green?

*what are a few courses by other designers that you hold in the highest regard?

thanks again...

John will have get back to you on this one in a few days. Dee

[HouckDesign]

Creek Ridge in Michigan City, In.

Do you guys do signs for courses that have already been designed?

Our signs very clearly state that they were designed by Houck Design...:\

I took that to mean the course was designed by you, sorry if that is incorrect.

We do design & manufacture tee signs for courses not designed by us.

[cydisc]

Do you have anything hotter than wimpy serranos?

[HouckDesign]

Great idea for a thread. I am looking forward to playing Cedar Glades in Hot Springs sometime. I wish he could do a course in or near my hometown (Cabot, AR). The city put in a small course for kids and said they would put a full course in later, but that hasn't happened. Maybe a designer like John would be able to get one put in around here.

We would love to work at Cabot. If you know someone at the city whom we can contact, please email us. Dee

[HouckDesign]

I can always tell it's a Houck designed course because on each and every hole there seems to be that one tree that is just in the right (wrong) place and forces a player to dig deeper. Even on holes with just one tree you always seem to design it with that tree in the perfect place. To me that is the genius in your design.

I have no question really. just an observation/compliment.

John says, "I appreciate it but make sure to thank the trees too. They are the ones that make you dig deeper." :-) Dee

[HouckDesign]

Do you have anything hotter than wimpy serranos?

Steve, if you like heat, come back in August! next time it's habaneros! Hugs :-) Dee

[HouckDesign]

Is having a raised pin thats above someones head (i.e. Hornets nest) too gimicky?

John says one man's gimmick is another mans innovation but he'll write more later. Dee

[HouckDesign]

What is John's view of a forced water carry in a public park setting. By water I'm not talking about a creek where you can reach down and pick up the disc, I'm talking deep or fast-moving water where a disc that does not make it over will be lost.

He says safety first and he'll get back to you with more details.

[HouckDesign]

Tell John that I'm still mad about making hole 3 at Harry Myers 109304 feet long - (It's my favorite hole)

Actually if I only get to say one thing... Make it this: How can I grow a cool beard like John?


Stay single and don't shave. Dee
Thank you. I love hole 3 also. John

[HouckDesign]

How do you find fairways on heavily wooded, fairly featureless property?

I'm thinking, in this case, of the Jackson Course at IDGC, which may be the only Houck course I've played, and especially the rather level parts of it. How do you visualize an 800' hole when you can only see 80' through the woods? How do you take virtually a blank sheet and come up with a design?

I'm partly responsible for---some might say guilty of---designing one private course, where we could do it one hole at a time over several years and where there were all kinds of cool terrain features we could incorporate. Which is much, much easier. (And made easier by some of your articles I've read on course design).

Thank you for the compliment about the articles. I'll write back a longer response later. John

[HouckDesign]

I'd like to ask John what he's got up his sleeve for the Rochester, NY area concerning the 2011 am worlds.

:)

\/\/

I made an initial visit there last year and saw a lot of potential in the courses. It's really up to the local people what they do with the courses. I hope my suggestions were helpful and I always look forward to spending time in Western NY. John

[HouckDesign]

Is it bad to have holes that are par 3.5 or between par 3 and 4? Meaning only the the best of the best have a chance to deuce it, getting a 3 is nothing special and you feel like you screwed up when you card a 4? Thanks.

John's written a couple of article about DUMB holes and he knows this is an important discussion. He'll write back to you when he has a little more time. Dee
Here is a link of the article.
http://www.houckdesign.com/dumbholes.html

[HouckDesign]

Could also be Gentry and my sleeves depending on John's schedule...

Chuck, you have to prove that you can eat 50 FIRE HOT chicken wings in under 3 minutes before they will let you land at the Buffalo airport. Either that or you have to be able to name every starting player from the Bills 4 superbowl teams. John

[Cgkdisc]

I'll make sure not to wear my Browns gear and bypass Buffalo to visit Rochester by car. ;)

[cheddapig]

hey wouled you guys be interesed in designing a course in pottstown pa

[All GUNKed up]

lagrassa is on the pdga course designers group. he is a member here and lives near reading. give him a try.

[Cgkdisc]

Just for clarification, the DGCD course designers group of 135 members is independent from the PDGA. However, the PDGA relies on the DGCD to produce documents and standards which the PDGA usually adopts. Everyone on the PDGA Course Committee happens to be a DGCD member: Kennedy (Chair), Houck, Doyle, Gentry, Wallis, Monroe and Lyksett.

[Sports_Fan_Stan]

John's written a couple of article about DUMB holes and he knows this is an important discussion. He'll write back to you when he has a little more time. Dee
Here is a link of the article.
http://www.houckdesign.com/dumbholes.html

Very interesting how that article refers to the traditions in ball/stick golf. I imagine that Mr. Houck has taken a bunch of static over the years for using BG concepts in DG course design. Enjoyed the article, thanks!!!

[Rockwell]

That Dumb Holes article was brilliant! I love to see thinking men taking our sport to the next level. Both in course design and written word.

[HouckDesign]

hey wouled you guys be interesed in designing a course in pottstown pa

We would welcome the opportunity to design in PA. Please send us an email from our website and we will see what we can do to get you a HouckDesign course in Pottstown. In fact, I'm originally from PA. Grew up outside Pittsburgh! Beautiful country! :-) Dee

[cydisc]

Very interesting how that article refers to the traditions in ball/stick golf. I imagine that Mr. Houck has taken a bunch of static over the years for using BG concepts in DG course design. Enjoyed the article, thanks!!!

It's funny how what is tradition in BG is considered progessive or even radical in DG. John is one of those who gets it. Don't be skeered y'all.

[billnchristy]

Great article (dumb holes). But it made me think...

I recently got to shadow the pro women at the Atlanta Open and yes, a lot of holes do turn out to be dumb for them but I also noticed that, like you said, they are used to long approaches and putts. I would dare say that save for the very top of male pros, these women are better, leaps and bounds better, then the men with their approaches and putts. (Certainly better than their "equally" rated male counterparts.)

If your idea of different tees actually caught on would it help or hurt their game? Surely their scores would lower and maybe we would see a 1000 rated woman...but would they be better golfers?

Personally I think they should have their own rating system as the equalizer...maybe because we do not have a lot of 600+ foot holes here though.

[frisbeeguy]

When is John going to play a PDGA event so he can get a player rating? :)

Whoa, JH... you've been called OUT!

(happy birthday :clap: )

[Cgkdisc]

If your idea of different tees actually caught on would it help or hurt their game? Surely their scores would lower and maybe we would see a 1000 rated woman...but would they be better golfers?

Here are some interesting stats regarding top women. At PW2007, I designed the Final 9 for the top men, basically, super gold players. The top 4 women played that same layout. On every hole, at least one or more men had a different score than the other guys. This is how John and I determine if we did a good job designing temp holes for this level. On five of these nine holes, all women had the same score. So, only four holes provided a good chance for Des, who was chasing Val, to pick up a shot.

Another study from PW2001 compared groups of Women, Masters/GM and Open Men who all averaged around a 950 rating. All groups averaged the same score on the course being evaluated which is what you would hope is the case if they average the same rating. However, the course was half open and half wooded holes. If you went hole-by-hole, the women and older guys shot a little better than the young guys in the woods. The young guys shot better than the women and older guys on the open holes. So if a course is balanced, players with similar ratings will shoot the same. If it's more open, the younger guys of the same rating will likely do a little better than the women and older guys. Just the opposite for wooded courses.

[billnchristy]

I guess that confirms it is bad design for women then if there is no scoring spread.

I really like the points made but the problem lies in the feasibility...you either have 6-7 concrete eyesores dotting the landscape per hole or you end up with 6 rutted, crappy natural tees dotting the landscape and one nice concrete pad for the gold tee that everyone ends up playing anyways...how do you fix that?

[Sports_Fan_Stan]

...I really like the points made but the problem lies in the feasibility...you either have 6-7 concrete eyesores dotting the landscape per hole or you end up with 6 rutted, crappy natural tees dotting the landscape and one nice concrete pad for the gold tee that everyone ends up playing anyways...how do you fix that?

This sure seems like the key dilemma. :wall:

[Miller]

...you either have 6-7 concrete eyesores dotting the landscape per hole

If done well (flush with the ground, maybe some border and/or mulch around it) I don't think they have to be eyesores and then 3 boxes per hole could be fairly done. The question is do you have the space/time/money to do all that.

[Cgkdisc]

I really like the points made but the problem lies in the feasibility...you either have 6-7 concrete eyesores dotting the landscape per hole or you end up with 6 rutted, crappy natural tees dotting the landscape and one nice concrete pad for the gold tee that everyone ends up playing anyways...how do you fix that?
No public course should have gold tees unless it also has at least one other set either blue or white also cemented. Most designers have the long tees on public courses set for blue level. Even if they don't know how to do that even the inexperienced ones get most of them suitable for blue level. That's where the top women fall so they usually have good tees for them in regular events. It's when there are temp set ups catering to the top guys that the differences emerge.

More women are starting to understand that having good tees for scoring chances is a good thing while others feel that it somehow makes them look bad if they play shorter tees than the men when spectators are around. The women LPGA ball golfers play shorter tees than the PGA guys but that's only obvious in one event per year since they normally have separate events.

[Peterb]

Hi John and Dee. I have been getting into course design out here in the bay area for the past several years. Recently, I have teamed up with some experienced designers to help with the McLaren Park (SF) design. The design has created outrage from neighbors who feel that the course will be a catastrophe on many levels. My question for you is, how do you deal with angry neighbors?

[solomon.trenton]

John says one man's gimmick is another mans innovation but he'll write more later. Dee

ok thank you very much. is there a case where you wouldnt want to have a specialized basket? i mean like on an island or an elevated basket.

[sidewinding]

How is your last name pronounced?

How-k
Who-k
Ho-uck
Hook
Huck
Hawk
Hoke

I've heard it pronounce many different ways but have never been sure what's correct.

[Jukeshoe]

We do design & manufacture tee signs for courses not designed by us.

Alright, I guess that explains it...

Great job on the tee-signs, btw...definitely the most accurate and to-scale ones I've seen...:clap:

[magictenor1]

No public course should have gold tees unless it also has at least one other set either blue or white also cemented. Most designers have the long tees on public courses set for blue level. Even if they don't know how to do that even the inexperienced ones get most of them suitable for blue level. That's where the top women fall so they usually have good tees for them in regular events. It's when there are temp set ups catering to the top guys that the differences emerge.

More women are starting to understand that having good tees for scoring chances is a good thing while others feel that it somehow makes them look bad if they play shorter tees than the men when spectators are around. The women LPGA ball golfers play shorter tees than the PGA guys but that's only obvious in one event per year since they normally have separate events.

I am a 50 year old man and I never play gold tees. I am not long enough to enjoy them. I know lots of guys who do not automatically go to the long tees. I think sometimes it is a macho thing where guys think they have to play the long tees to prove their manhood.

[magictenor1]

How is your last name pronounced?

How-k
Who-k
Ho-uck
Hook
Huck
Hawk
Hoke

I've heard it pronounce many different ways but have never been sure what's correct.

me too.

[HouckDesign]

me too.

How-k

As in "How could you pronounce it any other way?" :-) Dee

[HouckDesign]

Alright, I guess that explains it...

Great job on the tee-signs, btw...definitely the most accurate and to-scale ones I've seen...:clap:

Thank you! :-)

[johnrhouck]

Hi, everyone --

Wow -- that's a lot of questions, and just about 1,000 views in two days. I wasn't really expecting that kind of response. Thanks so much for your interest and for all the good questions. I especially want to thank Tim for the opportunity, and even more so my wonderful, brilliant, and beautiful business partner and wife Dee for making this thread happen.

Let's see what we can get to tonight...

[johnrhouck]

John-

Which design element is worse in your eyes:

The "walking trail" fairway
-or-
The "we didn't remove ANY trees" random fairway

Would you consider a course that has a scoring spread of 12-16 strokes for an average player a course with too much luck factor to be considered a good course?

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean with those two terms -- maybe you can flesh them out a little. I'm guessing that "walking trail" refers to a narrow fairway. As for not removing any trees, that can sometimes be a good thing (and a necessary thing, according to the property owners), but I don't think good designers ever strive for randomness.

As for a big scoring spread like that, obviously wooded courses will have bigger spreads than open courses, and average players will normally have bigger spreads than top players. Numbers like that can be very helpful, but they can sometimes be misleading, too. It sounds like maybe you have a particular course in mind?

I'm in no position to condemn a course based just on a scoring spread -- there are way too many other unknown factors. Maybe you can give us a little more information, or better yet a hypothetical example that can reveal a course design principle people will find helpful.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

tell john a bunch of my friends ( the pastor guy) were up at his place a couple of days ago and raved about how he designed the several courses that they played on .

That's great to hear. And they seemed like great guys.

Thanks,
John

[AdamCaudle]

I now want to be a course designer. Good reads, John!

[johnrhouck]

What is John's view of a forced water carry in a public park setting. By water I'm not talking about a creek where you can reach down and pick up the disc, I'm talking deep or fast-moving water where a disc that does not make it over will be lost.

Like pretty much everyone else, I love good holes with good water hazards. At a public park, I think players always need the option to play safe. If the carry is so long that they won't clear it every time, they need to be able to lay up or go around the water (or play from a different tee). Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know of a situation where it's appropriate to deprive people of those options.

I also think there is some water that we need to stay clear of, no matter how tempting it is. I've designed courses next to creeks or ponds with steep banks, and it was tough to do, but I had to do the right thing and keep the course away from potentially dangerous areas. If someone can get hurt trying to retrieve a disc, we need to think twice before putting anyone in that situation.

And that doesn't just go for water. It can be any area where people can be hurt trying to retrieve a disc.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

Great idea for a thread. I am looking forward to playing Cedar Glades in Hot Springs sometime. I wish he could do a course in or near my hometown (Cabot, AR). The city put in a small course for kids and said they would put a full course in later, but that hasn't happened. Maybe a designer like John would be able to get one put in around here.

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy Cedar Glades. I know there are people who loved it, and there are a couple people who... apparently prefer a different style of course. It's a beautiful park; I'm proud of the work I did there; and Don George from the county was wonderful to work with.

Thanks,
John

[Jukeshoe]

When designing a course on a piece of land that is half wooded and half open, do you make a conscious attempt to stagger the holes so that the layout doesn't have, for example, the front 9 holes all open and the back 9 all wooded?

[johnrhouck]

How do you find fairways on heavily wooded, fairly featureless property?

I'm thinking, in this case, of the Jackson Course at IDGC, which may be the only Houck course I've played, and especially the rather level parts of it. How do you visualize an 800' hole when you can only see 80' through the woods? How do you take virtually a blank sheet and come up with a design?

I'm partly responsible for---some might say guilty of---designing one private course, where we could do it one hole at a time over several years and where there were all kinds of cool terrain features we could incorporate. Which is much, much easier. (And made easier by some of your articles I've read on course design).

Another great question. I think being able to see holes in those situations is a skill you need to develop. To be honest, I wasn't very good at it when I started 23 years ago, and I'm sure I can be better still at it.

The first thing I would say is that you're never working with a truly blank sheet. There will be trees you're allowed to cut down and trees that you won't. In any case, we almost always want to minimize the number of trees we remove. So the forest will tell you where you can create good fairways with minimal tree removal.

Being able to see what an area will look like without the small trees takes practice. The other key for me is to use lots of surveyor's tape. I run it across key areas that I think might make good fairways. And sometimes I tape individual trees that I'm hoping to keep (or to remove). That makes it a lot easier to see what's going on. I think I mentioned this technique in my last Disc Golfer article.

You're right that making 800' holes when you can't see very far is tough. That's why some courses (like mine at the IDGC) take me more than 100 hours to design. And that's why it's becoming standard operating procedure for me to come back to the site after the initial clearing, so that I can re-evaluate each hole and "fine tune" it in key spots. I'm very ambitious in this regard, and I'm somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to making great holes. I know other designers don't see it that way, but if a hole is going to have my name on it, I want to spend the time to make it as perfect as I can.

The good news is that, after doing 80+ courses, I can see fairways pretty quickly in areas where they're not so obvious.

Good luck with your course and thanks.

John

[Three Putt]

If the carry is so long that they won't clear it every time, they need to be able to lay up or go around the water (or play from a different tee).So how far is that?

We moved a tee at my local course behind a pond. The water carry is nothing, something like 80' maybe. For anybody with reasonable skills the water isn't even a factor. I play with my 9 and 6 year old daughters, and 80' makes the hole unplayable for them. They also can't hit the bail out spot because of the shape of the pond. I think we need another tee in front of the pond, but most of the people I've talked to think I'm crazy because it would make a pretty lousy hole. I think keeping the course playable for kids and new players trumps having a tough hole in a public park.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out how much of a jerk to be on this one. Basically I'm just trying to gauge how crazy I am.

[Donovan]

Thanks to everyone for their great questions! :clap:

John and Dee,
We will never be able to tell you how much your taking the time do this once in a while means to us. :clap:

[johnrhouck]

Hi John and Dee. I have been getting into course design out here in the bay area for the past several years. Recently, I have teamed up with some experienced designers to help with the McLaren Park (SF) design. The design has created outrage from neighbors who feel that the course will be a catastrophe on many levels. My question for you is, how do you deal with angry neighbors?

Ah, angry neighbors... let's check the handbook...

First off, I think it's important to always be respectful. They have a right to their opinion, and you'll do better if you hear them out. Sometimes they're a bit misinformed, so if you can calmly educate them, you may just get through. If they educate you, you might be able to help address their concerns (by re-routing the course, putting in trash cans, etc. etc.)

Whenever you can, get them to a basket and have them make a couple putts. I've seen that simple activity turn on light bulbs above many people's heads. Get their kids to try it.

Sometimes it helps to set up some temporary holes and have people play them, so that the neighbors see that disc golf isn't evil and isn't going to ruin the neighborhood. You might even need to hold a couple events using temporary baskets before you can get approval from the naysayers.

I hope that helps a little. I know you guys in SF have had a lot of hurdles, but it sounds like you're making good progress. Please tell my old friend Ross "The Toss" Hammond that I said hi. We played disc together in Buffalo in the late '70's.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

So how far is that?

We moved a tee at my local course behind a pond. The water carry is nothing, something like 80' maybe. For anybody with reasonable skills the water isn't even a factor. I play with my 9 and 6 year old daughters, and 80' makes the hole unplayable for them. They also can't hit the bail out spot because of the shape of the pond. I think we need another tee in front of the pond, but most of the people I've talked to think I'm crazy because it would make a pretty lousy hole. I think keeping the course playable for kids and new players trumps having a tough hole in a public park.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out how much of a jerk to be on this one. Basically I'm just trying to gauge how crazy I am.

In this type of case, the numbers don't lie. If people are throwing in the water and have no opportunity to play safe, the carry is too long. In this case, it seems too long for younger kids. I think Rhinesel is right: drop a couple discs on the ground and make a special tee for your kids.

If you think there are going to be a good numbers of kids who are playing without supervision (or at least without parents who know how to keep them out of the water), then make a tee for them. I'm really intrigued by the counterargument you cite: "it would make a pretty lousy hole."

OK, it would make a lousy hole for adults. So adults don't use that tee. What's the big deal? I've made courses that are full of beginner tees that make lousy holes for experienced players. For that matter, if you're not a gold level player, there are some pretty lousy holes -- for you -- on the Jackson course at the IDGC.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you have offered a simple, workable solution. And in case there's any confusion, no one should feel obligated to use every tee on a course. Use the ones that make sense for your skill level.

By the way, I've never heard of anyone who aroused angry neighbors by catering to kids in the park. On the contrary, it usually makes our sport look good.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

thank you both for taking the time to answer some of our questions! i've got a few off the top of my head to pose:

*do you have a preference for a certain mix of pars, if the land is available and fitting, such as 9 par 3s, 5 par 4s, and 4 par 5s (or some other combination)?

*how close, in general, do you believe to be 'too close' to have an O.B. area (water or otherwise) to a basket or green?

*what are a few courses by other designers that you hold in the highest regard?

thanks again...

Great questions. I'm not sure there is a perfect mix of pars -- I think the land generally dictates what will work best. But I do think that par fours add a lot of dimension to the game, and when I can, I prefer to have as many par fours as par threes (if not more). I also think that really good pars fives are harder to design in disc golf than they are in traditional golf, and sometimes the land just doesn't give you many. Last week I completed the preliminary design of a great new course on Nantucket Island. Right now it's looking like seven par threes, eight par fours, and three par fives. I'm very pleased with how it turned out.

I don't have a rule for how close a basket can be to OB. I know I'll diverge from some other designers here, but I think that answer depends on a number of factors. For example, if someone's approaching from 300', the basket shouldn't be as close to OB as if they're approaching from 150'. Wind would be another factor. We had one hole in Sana Saba that I think was maybe 7'-8' from OB; normally I wouldn't put a basket that close, but in that particular case, I think it worked.

Just off the top of my head ... Like many people I think Harold's done a great job with Winthrop Gold. Many of the techniques he's used there aren't appropriate for public park courses, but they work great for the USDGC. Harold is a very thoughtful and sensible designer. Closer to home, I think Mike Olse did a great job at Manor. And there are many more praiseworthy courses out there.

Thanks,
John

[Dave242]

Hi John & Dee - great stuff...thank you!

I grew up in DG in Charlotte NC and am strongly influenced by Stan McDaniel & Harold Duvall designs (and I have read all your stuff online). I recently moved to Chicago and am proposing to bring a Blue level Par-64ish course to the big flat city of lousy 9-holers. I am in discussions with Park & Rec now.

You have mentioned that Par 5's are difficult to design well. What are your thoughts on this hole? I realize you are very limited by looking just at an aerial & topo map.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4843&stc=1&d=1272034995

First throw is a onto a island/peninsula (at least for tournament play) that takes 260' (195' effective) just to get onto the "peninsula". OB access road (no traffic ever except maybe Zamboni) on right, woods on left. Narrowing landing zone toward a 10' gap to enter the woods (the trees shown have been cut down, the white line is the tree line).

Second throw is about 230' (265' effective) through the 10' gap into woods with mature oaks spaced 10' to 50' apart with enough underbrush to carve out a fairway that would punish bad kicks.

Approach is then around 200' through the same sort of woods.

The risk/reward plan is to make the hole eagle-able (3) if you push your drive way up the narrowing landing zone. If you stay inbounds and are lined up well you will have a 2nd shot of around 330' (350' effective) through the woods to get into putting range.

[magictenor1]

So how far is that?

We moved a tee at my local course behind a pond. The water carry is nothing, something like 80' maybe. For anybody with reasonable skills the water isn't even a factor. I play with my 9 and 6 year old daughters, and 80' makes the hole unplayable for them. They also can't hit the bail out spot because of the shape of the pond. I think we need another tee in front of the pond, but most of the people I've talked to think I'm crazy because it would make a pretty lousy hole. I think keeping the course playable for kids and new players trumps having a tough hole in a public park.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out how much of a jerk to be on this one. Basically I'm just trying to gauge how crazy I am. I think you are right on target. At my home course there are a few holes like that where women and kids often don't want to even throw for fear of losing discs in the water. We are putting in some alternate tees just for them. Also at Paul B. Johnson there is a hole over water that has a 3rd tee for just that reason (all the other holes have 2 tees but this one has 3). One of the Pensacola Navy base courses has junior tees for the entire course. I wish more courses would do this as it would really help families and groups with widely varied skill levels.

[Cgkdisc]

This is from the PDGA Course Design Guidelines:

"No player throwing from the shortest (or only) tee on a hole should ever be "forced" to throw over water that is normally greater than 18" deep (50cm). Design an alternate flight path (usually to the left) that gives player the option to not cross water. Any normally dry trenches or bodies of water under 18" deep that are regularly in play should have safe paths down and out to be able to throw and/or retrieve discs safely."

[Peterb]

Ah, angry neighbors... let's check the handbook...

First off, I think it's important to always be respectful. They have a right to their opinion, and you'll do better if you hear them out. Sometimes they're a bit misinformed, so if you can calmly educate them, you may just get through. If they educate you, you might be able to help address their concerns (by re-routing the course, putting in trash cans, etc. etc.)

Whenever you can, get them to a basket and have them make a couple putts. I've seen that simple activity turn on light bulbs above many people's heads. Get their kids to try it.

Sometimes it helps to set up some temporary holes and have people play them, so that the neighbors see that disc golf isn't evil and isn't going to ruin the neighborhood. You might even need to hold a couple events using temporary baskets before you can get approval from the naysayers.

I hope that helps a little. I know you guys in SF have had a lot of hurdles, but it sounds like you're making good progress. Please tell my old friend Ross "The Toss" Hammond that I said hi. We played disc together in Buffalo in the late '70's.

Thanks,
John

I'll be playing the SF weekly with Mr. Hammond, and will send him your best wishes.

Somehow I doubt that many of the neighbors will ever be swayed. Several of them value the park for its serenity. The last thing they want are middle schoolers coming into the park to shred plastic.

[johnrhouck]

Hi John & Dee - great stuff...thank you!

I grew up in DG in Charlotte NC and am strongly influenced by Stan McDaniel & Harold Duvall designs (and I have read all your stuff online). I recently moved to Chicago and am proposing to bring a Blue level Par-64ish course to the big flat city of lousy 9-holers. I am in discussions with Park & Rec now.

You have mentioned that Par 5's are difficult to design well. What are your thoughts on this hole? I realize you are very limited by looking just at an aerial & topo map.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4843&stc=1&d=1272034995

First throw is a onto a island/peninsula (at least for tournament play) that takes 260' (195' effective) just to get onto the "peninsula". OB access road (no traffic ever except maybe Zamboni) on right, woods on left. Narrowing landing zone toward a 10' gap to enter the woods (the trees shown have been cut down, the white line is the tree line).

Second throw is about 230' (265' effective) through the 10' gap into woods with mature oaks spaced 10' to 50' apart with enough underbrush to carve out a fairway that would punish bad kicks.

Approach is then around 200' through the same sort of woods.

The risk/reward plan is to make the hole eagle-able (3) if you push your drive way up the narrowing landing zone. If you stay inbounds and are lined up well you will have a 2nd shot of around 330' (350' effective) through the woods to get into putting range.

Dave,

Now that's a great question. I'm eager to dig in to it. Thanks to everyone else for their patience. My wonderful wife and I will be celebrating our wedding anniversary the next couple nights, and then I've got family coming in to celebrate my 50th birthday/the 20th year of World's Biggest this weekend. Nobody throws a party like Dee, and I hear she's got several great surprises lined up. Of course, you're all invited...

Anyway, you probably won't see any thorough answers from my keyboard the next week or so, but keep the questions coming. Dave -- if your question is time-sensitive, let me know.

A little good news: just finished the design of a very nice course at Trinity University in San Antonio. Great location and great people. The property was only big enough for 6 holes, but it's definitely the best 6-hole course I've ever done. It could be installed within the next couple weeks; no word yet on whether it will be open to the public.

[Dave242]

Thanks for the response. No rush.....any more. I had a walk-through with the Planning Director and we did not talk specifics of individual holes. I was thinking we might and so I wanted to be prepared and your input (whether positive or negative/cautionary) would have been great food for thought.

I am still very interested in hearing your thoughts. I have never seen a hole like this implemented (drive to narrowing landing zone followed by an narrow-ish gap, then one more through through the woods) but have seen elements of it implemented in lots of places. I think it has a lot of potential, but I do want to make sure I do it right (at least no fatal no-no's).

Anyway - have a happy birthday and anniversary. My wife has the same sort of party-throwing talent your wife has it seems. Had a huge party 2 weekends ago and went away for our anniversary this last weekend......and I have to admit that I logged into this site on my PDA a few times to see if you had responded. :)

[grodney]

First throw is a onto a island/peninsula (at least for tournament play) that takes 260' (195' effective) just to get onto the "peninsula".

To clarify:
The picture shows 350 (310 effective) for the first shot. So, it's 260 to get over the sidewalk (or path/road/whatever), and 350 to the middle of the peninsula (or landing area)? Is that what you're saying?

Other than that, I think the gap into the woods is key. I'm wondering how this 10' gap actually plays? If that gap is too small, you're making your landing area too small.

That is, if I throw a good solid drive to the landing area, I should at least be able to advance into the woods such that I can reasonably reach the pin on my 3rd. If the gap at the woods is too small, you're forcing players to either: a) Get their drive lined up *perfectly* just to throw a reasonable 2nd, or b) Throw what is essentially a layup barely into the gap and thus leaving too far for their 3rd.

In my opinion, a less-than-perfect drive should not *dramatically* decrease your opportunity for reaching the pin in 3 shots. Yes, it should make it tougher to get there in 3 (duh), but it shouldn't eliminate it.

Designer: "Okay, the drive is 350 (plays 310). Now, I'm EVIL, so even though this peninsula is 60 feet wide, if you don't hit the middle 15' of it, you've got to lay up into the gap, leaving you 330 (350 effective) to the pin! See, I'm EVIL!! Bwwwah ha ha haha haha hahahaha ha. Pure genius. Pure EVIL!!!"

Rodney: "That's dumb."

Admittedly, this is a very fine line.


Edit: We should have a special splinter thread called "People Who Aren't John Houck Responding to Questions Meant for John Houck".

[grodney]

Question for John: I know you're not a pure numbers guy (understatement?). But if you design a par-3 (one-shot hole) for a particular skill level (gold, blue, whatever), what percentage of players (of that skill level) would you like to see putting on their 2nd shot?

Your answer would obviously vary, but let's go low end. That is, what is the LOWEST percentage you would want to see putting (under normal weather conditions)? If only 10% of the field* is putting, is that too low? Is 30% too low? Is 50% too low?


*I say "field", because even in a certain skill level (gold, blue, whatever), there will be a range of skills, right?


P.S. Hi John! Hi Dee!

[osbogosley]

Happy 50th, sheesh, Got another ace Friday just after seeing Taco on his way to Wimberly. I told him to say happy birthday to you from me. I donate the ace to you. Keep on trucking.

[esdubya]

Hi John,

I was wondering if you have a standard deviation in Pro level scores you shoot for when designing a hole? Could you please share with us your target range for score standard deviation if you have one?

Thanks! Scott

[johnrhouck]

Great article (dumb holes). But it made me think...

I recently got to shadow the pro women at the Atlanta Open and yes, a lot of holes do turn out to be dumb for them but I also noticed that, like you said, they are used to long approaches and putts. I would dare say that save for the very top of male pros, these women are better, leaps and bounds better, then the men with their approaches and putts. (Certainly better than their "equally" rated male counterparts.)

If your idea of different tees actually caught on would it help or hurt their game? Surely their scores would lower and maybe we would see a 1000 rated woman...but would they be better golfers?

Personally I think they should have their own rating system as the equalizer...maybe because we do not have a lot of 600+ foot holes here though.

That's a great observation.

A well-designed course will require everyone (including the women you mention) to execute long and short approach shots and a variety of putts during an 18-hole round, if they're playing tees designed for their skill level. The difference is that well-executed approach shots will result in birdies, not pars.

As for developing their skills, imagine what it would be like if they were constantly throwing approach shots from landing areas specifically designed to be fair, balanced, and challenging, rather than from a "no-man's land" somewhere short of the basket.

Sounds like we need to develop more real par fours in Pennsylvania -- let's see what we can do. I know you guys have some amazing parks.

[johnrhouck]

Here are some interesting stats regarding top women. At PW2007, I designed the Final 9 for the top men, basically, super gold players. The top 4 women played that same layout. On every hole, at least one or more men had a different score than the other guys. This is how John and I determine if we did a good job designing temp holes for this level. On five of these nine holes, all women had the same score. So, only four holes provided a good chance for Des, who was chasing Val, to pick up a shot.

Amen, CK.

Another study from PW2001 compared groups of Women, Masters/GM and Open Men who all averaged around a 950 rating. All groups averaged the same score on the course being evaluated which is what you would hope is the case if they average the same rating. However, the course was half open and half wooded holes. If you went hole-by-hole, the women and older guys shot a little better than the young guys in the woods. The young guys shot better than the women and older guys on the open holes. So if a course is balanced, players with similar ratings will shoot the same. If it's more open, the younger guys of the same rating will likely do a little better than the women and older guys. Just the opposite for wooded courses.

That's an important finding to keep in mind. In this case, the data are in line with what we'd expect intuitively, I think.

[tallpaul]

^^^^Talent level of all groups keeps increasing, so I think this will probably hole true; though, for average players, the long open holes are favoring younger players more and more. High speed plastic, of course, also plays into this.

[johnrhouck]

Is having a raised pin thats above someones head (i.e. Hornets nest) too gimicky?

ok thank you very much. is there a case where you wouldnt want to have a specialized basket? i mean like on an island or an elevated basket.

Solomon, thanks for your original question and your followup.

When I initially answered that "one man's gimmick is another man's innovation," I meant that well-intentioned people will disagree on where the line is between what's acceptable and what's too artificial or too "ungolflike." (Wow, that last word is pretty unenglishlike.)

At this point, I think the conventional wisdom is that the theory and practice of course design are still somewhat "young," and that we're at a stage when we should encourage designers to try new things. I pretty much agree with that stance.

My personal preference is for structures and procedures that appear as natural as possible, and I have a low tolerance for things that seem artificial. But that's just my taste, and it doesn't mean that someone else's tastes are wrong or inferior.

In the case of elevated baskets, I don't think I've done it on any of my courses, but I think elevated baskets are a fair attempt to solve some of the problems with putting in disc golf.

I think you can make a strong case that driving, and sometimes approaching, is much more interesting in disc golf than in traditional golf. There's so much more you can do with a disc than with a golf ball. And our designers can offer a lot more strategy options off the tee and in the fairway. But I think that putting in ball golf is a lot more interesting and challenging, and it requires more thought. Most of all, it's far more dramatic to watch. So I have some of my own ideas on how we might bridge that gap, and we can discuss those when I've developed them further.

Are there times when I wouldn't want to use a "specialized" basket? Absolutely. Not sure I can give you a rule of thumb for that, though. I hope my answer above gives you a sense of what I prefer.

Thanks,
John

[solomon.trenton]

Thanks John. That is exactly what I was wondrering. I tend to agree with you. But there is one hole In Cranbury Park in CT where the basket is anchored in a large rock. I think this is a great use if an elevated pin, and the only one I have seen.

[Kwick]

Thanks John. That is exactly what I was wondrering. I tend to agree with you. But there is one hole In Cranbury Park in CT where the basket is anchored in a large rock. I think this is a great use if an elevated pin, and the only one I have seen.

picture?

[optidiscic]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/1162/1d3be555.jpg

Heres another

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/20/034b2c4d.jpg

[kenjiac]

http://www.discgolfscene.com/media/18985_g.jpg

How's this for elevated pin. The base of the pin is probably ~7-8 ft up.
I soo miss woodstock rocks :(

[1978]

Brackett's Bluff #10 in Davidson NC and Renaissance #8 Charlotte, NC both have baskets mounted into rocks.

Bracketts is no longer listed here but here is Renny.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/587/edfa9cfc.jpg

also to further the conversation of basket locations here are 2 in 1 picture.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/587/75fcddb2.jpg

[solomon.trenton]

picture?

hole 9 at Cranbury

[Dave242]

I am not a moderator, but I suggest (as is the custom on these types of threads) we keep this thread on topic by only having posts here that are direct communication to and from Houck.

Plenty of good topics will most likely be spawned from the legit posts here, but there is nothing stopping anyone of us from starting individual threads on those topics.

[grodney]

While we wait patiently for the return of the King (or his Queen), I offer the following from the archives:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~rodneyg/houcks.jpg

ObCourseDesign: Hole 1 - Circ Hill. A great hole.

[grodney]

A Houck Drive:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/grodney/IMG_0344.jpg

A different Houck Drive:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/grodney/houckdrive.jpg

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=houck+dr+and+pease+dr,+pleasant+hill,+ia&sll=41.606637,-93.525075&sspn=0.00653,0.013937&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Houck+Dr+%26+Pease+Dr,+Pleasant+Hill,+Polk,+ Iowa+50327&ll=41.606153,-93.525957&spn=0.00653,0.013937&z=17

[tallpaul]

Fun pics of John....Hey John, you remember one of the Wisconsin crew that came down to San Saba; and one of us (me) had hurt his ankle bad a Z Boaz and didn't even get to see San Saba's courses? Well, I did play a number of courses on that ankle after that (including one each in Mississippi and Louisana/playing forehand to plant on my other foot/ankle). Walked around on that ankle for 3 weeks after that too; hoping it was just severely sprained. Turned out to have all three of the major bones broken, and when I finally had it looked at; they ended up having to put pins and screws in there. Anyway, hope things are well for you....can't believe I didn't have you sign anything when I was nursing my ankle. Think I was in too much pain to be thinking straight! :)

[FernValleyDGC]

My course is set in the hilly Kentucky woods. Do you know a easy way to measure the elevation on a hole. How is elevation factored in when you are setting the par for a hole?

[johnrhouck]

When designing a course on a piece of land that is half wooded and half open, do you make a conscious attempt to stagger the holes so that the layout doesn't have, for example, the front 9 holes all open and the back 9 all wooded?

Funny you should ask. I just had to make that choice on the course I've been working on in Nantucket (get those limericks ready).

Nantucket isn't a case where the two "halves" are exceptionally different, though that does happen; as you say, there are places where 9 holes are open and 9 are wooded. In this case, I thought it was best to vary the rhythm of the round by crossing back and forth. As it stands now, you'd play 5 holes on the north side (more open with black oaks), then 10 holes south (generally tighter with mostly pines), and finish with 3 north. There were other reasons for doing it that way, and I put fewer holes on the north side, because it has more sensitive habitat for protected moths.

Like pretty much any other design choice, I'd say it ultimately depends on what you're trying to create. I can certainly see situations where you might prefer a black/white, beauty/beast, heads/tails, Jekyll/Hyde, caterpillar/moth split. I suspect that, all other things being equal, I'd probably want to mix it up if I could.

Good question.

Thanks.
John

[Jukeshoe]

Funny you should ask. I just had to make that choice on the course I've been working on in Nantucket (get those limericks ready).

Nantucket isn't a case where the two "halves" are exceptionally different, though that does happen; as you say, there are places where 9 holes are open and 9 are wooded. In this case, I thought it was best to vary the rhythm of the round by crossing back and forth. As it stands now, you'd play 5 holes on the north side (more open with black oaks), then 10 holes south (generally tighter with mostly pines), and finish with 3 north. There were other reasons for doing it that way, and I put fewer holes on the north side, because it has more sensitive habitat for protected moths.

Like pretty much any other design choice, I'd say it ultimately depends on what you're trying to create. I can certainly see situations where you might prefer a black/white, beauty/beast, heads/tails, Jekyll/Hyde, caterpillar/moth split. I suspect that, all other things being equal, I'd probably want to mix it up if I could.

Good question.

Thanks.
John

Thank you. I can see the reasons why some course designers choose to or are "forced" into splitting the styles between front and back 9; however, I really enjoy courses with "staggered" holes.

[solomon.trenton]

Nantucket, as in MA? do you have any more details on the course or ideas of when it might be done?

[johnrhouck]

Hi John,

I was wondering if you have a standard deviation in Pro level scores you shoot for when designing a hole? Could you please share with us your target range for score standard deviation if you have one?

Thanks! Scott

OK, one more for tonight. Eventually, I'm going to have to face Rodney...

Scott, as much as I like score variances, and as much as I think it's important to tolerate the deviations of certain disc golfers, I think we need to be careful not to put science above art. I did a double major in Math and English, so I have a great appreciation for statistical analysis (and I can write about why), but I think we can take numbers too far in course design.

Score variance is very important, but I think we're better off when we use it as a diagnostic tool than when we look at it as an end in itself. And in the real world, it's not like we generally have the choice of so many nice pin positions and tee placements that we could say, "Well, if I move the tee here and the pin here, I can maximize my sigma values while keeping my scenic component within a delta tolerance..." At this point, I think we're happy when we can make beautiful and challenging holes that have good score variances.

As a matter of practical advice, I urge all designers to remember that a good hole has good score variance, but having good score variance doesn't make a hole good. (Sometimes holes yield a variety of scores because they're poorly designed.)

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

Nantucket, as in MA? do you have any more details on the course or ideas of when it might be done?

That's the one, Solomon. When I was there last month we had a great walkthrough with six representatives from the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, so that was good start.

Right now the final proposal is being put together for review by the nice people at the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. I hope they'll feel that we did enough to minimize impact on the the sensitive moth habitat, and that they'll give the course the green light.

Construction will be very labor-intensive, as there are a lot of dead trees to take down (and probably even more dead trees already on the ground). But it's going to be a great course. There are several holes that I really love, and I feel like I was able to realize some new concepts there. I went into this project with high hopes, and the land really cooperated. I left very encouraged.

I hope we get the approval soon, and I hope players will enjoy the course as much as I do.

[esdubya]

OK, one more for tonight. Eventually, I'm going to have to face Rodney...

Scott, as much as I like score variances, and as much as I think it's important to tolerate the deviations of certain disc golfers, I think we need to be careful not to put science above art. I did a double major in Math and English, so I have a great appreciation for statistical analysis (and I can write about why), but I think we can take numbers too far in course design.

Score variance is very important, but I think we're better off when we use it as a diagnostic tool than when we look at it as an end in itself. And in the real world, it's not like we generally have the choice of so many nice pin positions and tee placements that we could say, "Well, if I move the tee here and the pin here, I can maximize my sigma values while keeping my scenic component within a delta tolerance..." At this point, I think we're happy when we can make beautiful and challenging holes that have good score variances.

As a matter of practical advice, I urge all designers to remember that a good hole has good score variance, but having good score variance doesn't make a hole good. (Sometimes holes yield a variety of scores because they're poorly designed.)

Thanks,
John

I'm reading Pirsig right now, so I see this as the age old conflict of Classical(science) vs. Romantic(art) thought. I suppose a good designer is able to play on both the beauty and the science when designing a good hole.

Great response Mr. Houck, thanks for you feedback.

[Cgkdisc]

As one of the developers of more scientific/mathematical aspects in course design, I think some get the idea that that is how those of us who use these concepts do their design work from scratch. Not true. Visual hole design, aesthetics, route shaping, balance and flow are more artistic concepts that lead the way for perhaps all designers. However, where many designers fall down is not then applying the science/math and statistical methods to tweak those designs so they also play well or better for the intended player skill level. That's the, so far, little tapped frontier in hole design.

[WillACarpenter]

John,

Has the Rochester club been in touch with you at all recently, regarding the recent redesign of the Parma course? The only things I know for sure that changed (they did everything this weekend while I was getting my BUTT kicked at Black Diamond @ Emery Park) is that the VFW told them to take out hole 2 for casual play and they varied up some things between hole s12-15 I guess. And cement!

\/\/

[Scoot_er]

John, what can we do about Houston DG and the plague of having only one designer putting in 25+ lame courses?

I have mentioned your name at every junction but want to start doing something myself to get some quality courses installed instead of pursuing just quantity.

Sincerely,
Matt Hall

[giles]

John, what can we do about Houston DG and the plague of having only one designer putting in 25+ lame courses?

I have mentioned your name at every junction but want to start doing something myself to get some quality courses installed instead of pursuing just quantity.

Sincerely,
Matt Hall

Move away from Houston....

[sidewinding]

(get those limericks ready)

There once was a man from Nantucket,
who carried his discs in a bucket.
When he got to hole two, he needed to poo,
so he dumped out his discs and said f*** it.

[WillACarpenter]

There once was a man from Nantucket,
who carried his discs in a bucket.
When he got to hole two, he needed to poo,
so he dumped out his discs and said f*** it.

WIN

\/\/

[johnrhouck]

John, what can we do about Houston DG and the plague of having only one designer putting in 25+ lame courses?

I have mentioned your name at every junction but want to start doing something myself to get some quality courses installed instead of pursuing just quantity.

Sincerely,
Matt Hall

Hi, Matt --

Good to hear from you. While I appreciate the compliments and like to help people as much as possible, I hope you understand that I really want this use this forum to discuss my thoughts on course design issues rather than as a place to discuss other designers' work.

To be fair to Houston, I'm sure a lot of readers out there would consider having 25 courses of any type a blessing, and there are a few nice ones there in Houston. But I don’t want to criticize other designers' hard work; I don’t feel that would be appropriate or helpful. We're all doing our best to support the game of disc golf.

I would love to do some great courses in the Houston area; it's close to home, and we do have lots of friends there, including you. All that being said, send me your thoughts in a private e-mail, and let's talk about what your vision is.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

John,

Has the Rochester club been in touch with you at all recently, regarding the recent redesign of the Parma course? The only things I know for sure that changed (they did everything this weekend while I was getting my BUTT kicked at Black Diamond @ Emery Park) is that the VFW told them to take out hole 2 for casual play and they varied up some things between hole s12-15 I guess. And cement!

\/\/

Will, I haven't heard anything from Rochester in quite a while, so I don't have any update for you. But it is typical for the PDGA to do a follow-up review, and I'm hoping the process will continue.

Thanks,
John

[RussMB]

I hope this doesn't sound petty, because it actually could be a bigger issue and factor where I live. Have you ever had a bug problem on a course? If so, how did you handle it? I know everywhere has bugs, that's not what I mean. I live in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and we don't have bugs. We have these modified, bionic hybrid versions of bugs. There are some courses here I won't play until fall, just because of the bug issues.

We have a great location for an excellent course, and the county is about to start working on it. I drove through the area, and my truck was swarmed with deer flies. I know SC is known for it's bug problems, but I didn't know if you had run into this before. If not, they may just have to sell Deet at the rec center. A bug spray vending machine! lol What are your thoughts?

[tallpaul]

Awaiting comment that everything; including bugs; is bigger in Texas.

[RussMB]

Awaiting comment that everything; including bugs; is bigger in Texas.

They are bigger in Texas, but they are more Blood thirsty in South Carolina! ;)

I've seen spiders in Texas that are as big as a small bird!

[solomon.trenton]

I hope this doesn't sound petty, because it actually could be a bigger issue and factor where I live. Have you ever had a bug problem on a course? If so, how did you handle it? I know everywhere has bugs, that's not what I mean. I live in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and we don't have bugs. We have these modified, bionic hybrid versions of bugs. There are some courses here I won't play until fall, just because of the bug issues.

We have a great location for an excellent course, and the county is about to start working on it. I drove through the area, and my truck was swarmed with deer flies. I know SC is known for it's bug problems, but I didn't know if you had run into this before. If not, they may just have to sell Deet at the rec center. A bug spray vending machine! lol What are your thoughts?

the deet vending machine is an awesome idea!!!

[johnrhouck]

I hope this doesn't sound petty, because it actually could be a bigger issue and factor where I live. Have you ever had a bug problem on a course? If so, how did you handle it? I know everywhere has bugs, that's not what I mean. I live in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and we don't have bugs. We have these modified, bionic hybrid versions of bugs. There are some courses here I won't play until fall, just because of the bug issues.

We have a great location for an excellent course, and the county is about to start working on it. I drove through the area, and my truck was swarmed with deer flies. I know SC is known for it's bug problems, but I didn't know if you had run into this before. If not, they may just have to sell Deet at the rec center. A bug spray vending machine! lol What are your thoughts?

Funny you should ask, Russ, because I just came back from working on a very buggy course.

By the way, it's good to be back, and I'm sorry I've been away from DGCR for so long. Thanks for hanging in there, everyone.

I've been in (on?) Prince Edward Island the last couple weeks, working on what is going to be an absolutely amazing course. I'm very excited about it, and there are several holes there that will be relevant to some of the things we're talking about here. In particular, I got to spend some quality time working on the question of what it takes to make a great par five.

There were also a LOT of bugs in certain areas. There were a few spots where I was just about swarmed with mosquitoes and black flies. Enough that I got several stuck in my eye, if that helps you gauge the density. Surprisingly, they weren't biting, for the most part -- I have no idea how to explain that, other than they'd never seen a human before. That shouldn't have stopped them.

So what do you do? First, I guess you hope that opening an area up, mowing it, and helping it dry up will reduce the population of flying insects. If that doesn't help, and if some areas are too unpleasant to play, I would consider routing the course away from those areas, just as you would with boggy areas, areas with thorny plants, very rocky areas, or dangerous areas.

As for the new course you're talking about, if the bugs are just everywhere, what options are left, other than not putting in the course? At some point you just have to deal with what you have, and players will have to choose whether or not to come out and use it.

The worst bug situation I ever dealt with was in Port Arthur, Texas, site of the PDGA Pro Worlds in 1994 and '95. On my initial trip there to work on the first course (which ultimately became known as Berry's Treasure), I got to the back of the property and took a step that brought up a cloud of something, like a cloud of dust or dirt, but it was actually a cloud of mosquitoes. It was crazy. The course was pretty much unplayable unless the plane came over the island and sprayed the mosquitoes. Without that plane, we never could have had a tournament there. Of course, there was at least one player who wouldn't come because of all the pesticide, but so far just about everyone who played there seems to still be more-or-less normal.

The deer flies on the old ball golf course there could be pretty nasty, too, but only in certain shady spots.

The bottom line: in course design, as in life, you make the best of the hand you've been dealt. With your new course, you may find a new definition for the phrase "itching to play." You may also be able to raise record amounts of money for course improvements from deet sales. In any case, I wish you good luck.

Thanks,
John

[Cgkdisc]

but so far just about everyone who played there seems to still be more-or-less normal.

So that's the explanation...

[Rip Van]

In the case of elevated baskets, I don't think I've done it on any of my courses, but I think elevated baskets are a fair attempt to solve some of the problems with putting in disc golf.

I think you can make a strong case that driving, and sometimes approaching, is much more interesting in disc golf than in traditional golf. There's so much more you can do with a disc than with a golf ball. And our designers can offer a lot more strategy options off the tee and in the fairway. But I think that putting in ball golf is a lot more interesting and challenging, and it requires more thought. Most of all, it's far more dramatic to watch. So I have some of my own ideas on how we might bridge that gap, and we can discuss those when I've developed them further.


John, have you had a chance to develop these ideas further? I'd love to see top pros sweating over a 10-footer, instead of taking 30-footers as gimmes. This would also make drive placement much more important, allow for tougher short holes, keep older courses challenging, and let designers put more good holes on a smaller piece of land. Removing all the chains from the targets might do it. :)

[Sadjo]

John - If this has already been covered, I'm sorry...I haven't ready the entire thread.

We're in the midst of designing a course and I suggested a mando on a hole to 'take away' the easy hyzer route for right handed players and 'force' players to throw through six or seven scatted trees. The only other hazard is when players over throw the hole, they might end up in a lake. The lake is 75' behind the basket and the hole plays down hill 302'.

The questions and debate is some players think a mando should only be used for safety reasons and never to add difficulty to a hole. Your thoughts?

[solomon.trenton]

i think in that case if you overshoot the basket by 75' your not having a good day. i like mandos to make the course harder. its the same thing as OB

[REDARMY]

John - If this has already been covered, I'm sorry...I haven't ready the entire thread.

We're in the midst of designing a course and I suggested a mando on a hole to 'take away' the easy hyzer route for right handed players and 'force' players to throw through six or seven scatted trees. The only other hazard is when players over throw the hole, they might end up in a lake. The lake is 75' behind the basket and the hole plays down hill 302'.

The questions and debate is some players think a mando should only be used for safety reasons and never to add difficulty to a hole. Your thoughts?

personally, i can see both sides of that argument, but i have to go with the 'only for safety' side of it.

if it were my course, i'd put it in as it is, give it a few weeks to let people come through, then gather opinions from those who have played about wether the mando should should be put it or not before you started printing up scorecards and signage.

[johnrhouck]

John - If this has already been covered, I'm sorry...I haven't ready the entire thread.

We're in the midst of designing a course and I suggested a mando on a hole to 'take away' the easy hyzer route for right handed players and 'force' players to throw through six or seven scatted trees. The only other hazard is when players over throw the hole, they might end up in a lake. The lake is 75' behind the basket and the hole plays down hill 302'.

The questions and debate is some players think a mando should only be used for safety reasons and never to add difficulty to a hole. Your thoughts?

That's a really good question, Sadjo. I'm not exactly sure how to improve your hole, since I'm not really sure what it looks like -- maybe you can send a diagram -- but I can give you some general thoughts to chew on.

Any time a hole has an easy hyzer route (or an easy straight route, or an easy turnover route), it's probably a candidate for a redesign. There's nothing wrong with having a challenging hyzer route; one of my first questions would be why the water is so far away. Throwing through several "scattered trees" sounda a bit random -- is there a way to move the tee so that those trees offer legitmate routes? Can you toughen up the hyzer so that those routes become worth considering -- maybe plant a tree by the tee so that the hyzer route involves some risk or requires more precision?

The conventional wisdom among course designers is that mandos should always be a last resort, and that they're better used to ensure safety than as a design "crutch."

As Solomon points out, mandos and OB both make the course harder. But there are key differences. The biggest one is that a mandatory takes away a players' ability to make choices. In a sense, it reduces a player's freedom, and players don't generally like that. If you throw OB, you have only yourself to blame. (Of course that won't stop some players from blamng the designer, or their disc, etc.)

For the record, I think artificial OB should be a next-to-last resort. I'd rather put more effort into careful design than slap some OB on a hole.

Hope that helps.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

John, have you had a chance to develop these ideas further? I'd love to see top pros sweating over a 10-footer, instead of taking 30-footers as gimmes. This would also make drive placement much more important, allow for tougher short holes, keep older courses challenging, and let designers put more good holes on a smaller piece of land. Removing all the chains from the targets might do it. :)

I have, Rip, but I'm still working on it. I'm with you on making drive placement more important, and I'm with you on trying to eliminate gimmes. But the solution I'm working on is pretty complicated and will require more time and experimentation (and probably some failed attempts) before I'll be ready to test it in the real world.

As for removing the chains, I've frequently done that as a practice aid. I found that putting without chains wasn't really that much harder than putting with chains, unless you're putting into the wind. That's when I found myself wishing I had those chains.

What I like about putting without chains is that it requires the right pace as well as the right line, just as in ball golf. But I think there would be a lot of resistance from players at this point in our history. Players love the sound and the symbolism of chains.

Nice to know that a guy named Rip cares so much about the short game. I'll let you know when I have something for show and tell.

Thanks,
John

[Gregor]

John, are you involved in or know anything about the proposed course in east Austin that is supposed to "replace" Peace park? I don't care to get into anything controversial, just wondering if and when we might get another new course in the area.

Thanks

[Rip Van]

What I like about putting without chains is that it requires the right pace as well as the right line, just as in ball golf. But I think there would be a lot of resistance from players at this point in our history. Players love the sound and the symbolism of chains.


Totally agree about that. If I'd have posted anywhere but the "Ask John" thread, I'd have probably had my head ripped off for suggesting going chainless. I'm excited that a guy with some serious design cred is thinking about making the putting game more interesting.


Nice to know that a guy named Rip cares so much about the short game.

Well, it's "Rip Van" as in "Winkle" and refers mostly to having taken a long time off from the game (though I'm throwing way farther than before, thanks to the new disc tech). Pretty amazing waking up and seeing how things have changed.

Thanks for the response, John.

[Sadjo]

Any time a hole has an easy hyzer route (or an easy straight route, or an easy turnover route), it's probably a candidate for a redesign. There's nothing wrong with having a challenging hyzer route; one of my first questions would be why the water is so far away. Throwing through several "scattered trees" sounda a bit random -- is there a way to move the tee so that those trees offer legitmate routes? Can you toughen up the hyzer so that those routes become worth considering -- maybe plant a tree by the tee so that the hyzer route involves some risk or requires more precision?



Thanks,
John

This is a course on private land. The owner (who also is the one mowing the course) gave us some guidelines to follow with laying out a design. The first was we couldn't remove any trees. Second was keeping all baskets a minimum of 15 feet from any of the trees so his 15' wide mowing deck could pass between baskets and trees.

For you question about the water...the basket is so far from the water because the ground gets 'mushy' and we wanted to avoid any future issues if the water level increases (it's an 80 acre man-made lake) and we felt the basket could end up shifting too much if in softer ground.

What we did to remedy the situation is we moved the tee several feet left of the original tee area which now forces anyone who goes for the hyzer route to really get their shot out quicker.

This course's biggest challenges come in the form of major elevation changes. The course is built on an old apple orchard in the foothills of the Smokey Mountains where most of the old growth apple tree were cut down and we were told to avoid the newer apple trees to not cause any damage to the fruit, the trees or the people that go to the orchard to pick their own fruit. Safety first.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[johnrhouck]

Any time a hole has an easy hyzer route (or an easy straight route, or an easy turnover route), it's probably a candidate for a redesign...


I think I should probably clarify what I meant here. If your hole is so easy that players of a particular skill level are going to birdie it more often than 2 out of 3 times, then you need to look at changing it -- it's too easy.

But 302' downwhill, with some trees, and with at least a threat of water, doesn't sound like it's too easy. There are lots of holes out there that look too easy and feel too easy, but you keep kicking yourself because you didn't birdie them... again.

Hope that makes sense.

[Sadjo]

I'd love to see top pros sweating over a 10-footer, instead of taking 30-footers as gimmes. This would also make drive placement much more important, allow for tougher short holes, keep older courses challenging, and let designers put more good holes on a smaller piece of land. Removing all the chains from the targets might do it. :)

I've always liked courses that place baskets within a group of trees or some other obstacle that requires not only trying to land their drive or approach shot within 30 feet but also on the 'right' side of the hole due to trees or other obstacles.

Theres a few courses in my area that there is a 30' cleared area by most baskets. Makes it too easy. I like being forced better shot placement due to a tree, rocks, or other objects.

[johnrhouck]

Totally agree about that. If I'd have posted anywhere but the "Ask John" thread, I'd have probably had my head ripped off for suggesting going chainless. I'm excited that a guy with some serious design cred is thinking about making the putting game more interesting.

I really think that we have a lot of room for improvement there. But there's no easy solution. I think it's doable.

Well, it's "Rip Van" as in "Winkle" and refers mostly to having taken a long time off from the game (though I'm throwing way farther than before, thanks to the new disc tech). Pretty amazing waking up and seeing how things have changed.

I suspected that might be the case. But "Van" is a good name for someone who likes driving, too.

Thanks for the response, John.

Yes, sir. Welcome back.

[johnrhouck]

John, are you involved in or know anything about the proposed course in east Austin that is supposed to "replace" Peace park? I don't care to get into anything controversial, just wondering if and when we might get another new course in the area.

Thanks

Hi, Gregor. I don't know a whole lot about the new park, but I do know that, as of a few weeks ago, there had been no neighborhood meetings about it, and there were no permits to begin construction. That said, I don't know of any major obstacles, and I think there's every reason to believe that we'll see it in the ground, maybe even in 2010.

I'm not ready to talk about "replacing" Pease. I think there's still room for optimism that there will still be a course at Pease when it's all said and done. The disc golf community really made a good showing at the public meeting, and the parks department was clearly receptive to some of the arguments we made. That discussion is far from over.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

This is a course on private land. The owner (who also is the one mowing the course) gave us some guidelines to follow with laying out a design. The first was we couldn't remove any trees. Second was keeping all baskets a minimum of 15 feet from any of the trees so his 15' wide mowing deck could pass between baskets and trees.


Every property comes with rules, and those sound pretty fair. (And that's a big deck he's using...)

For you question about the water...the basket is so far from the water because the ground gets 'mushy' and we wanted to avoid any future issues if the water level increases (it's an 80 acre man-made lake) and we felt the basket could end up shifting too much if in softer ground.

Good answer.

What we did to remedy the situation is we moved the tee several feet left of the original tee area which now forces anyone who goes for the hyzer route to really get their shot out quicker.

That sounds like it could be a good solution. There are two things that I always hope for on hole like the one you're describing. First, whenever you have more than one route on a hole, it's great if players have to reconsider their choice every time. That is to say that someone who likes the hyzer route won't automatically just take that same route every time. It's easy to design a hole like that if the routes are flukey or lucky; it's hard to do if the routes are fair but challenging. Often it just can't be done.

Second, every hole has a role to play on the course. If you have a hole that heavily favors righties, there needs to be a place on the course that evens things out for lefties. The concept of balance is fairly complex, but treating everyone equally is a good place to start.

This course's biggest challenges come in the form of major elevation changes. The course is built on an old apple orchard in the foothills of the Smokey Mountains where most of the old growth apple tree were cut down and we were told to avoid the newer apple trees to not cause any damage to the fruit, the trees or the people that go to the orchard to pick their own fruit. Safety first.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Sounds like a nice place, and it's great that the owner is making disc golf available. Definitely don't harm those apples. Good luck with it.

Thanks,
John

[chrishysell]

Hey John, how have you been? Miss me?

[Sadjo]

That sounds like it could be a good solution. There are two things that I always hope for on hole like the one you're describing. First, whenever you have more than one route on a hole, it's great if players have to reconsider their choice every time. That is to say that someone who likes the hyzer route won't automatically just take that same route every time. It's easy to design a hole like that if the routes are flukey or lucky; it's hard to do if the routes are fair but challenging. Often it just can't be done.

After playing the other day, I saw players go righty hyzer, lefty hyzer and some went through the trees right at the hole. I think we've done well with that hole. Thanks for your input.

Second, every hole has a role to play on the course. If you have a hole that heavily favors righties, there needs to be a place on the course that evens things out for lefties. The concept of balance is fairly complex, but treating everyone equally is a good place to start.

When doing the design, that was one of our goals. We've ended up with 4 each for righties and lefties. The other holes allow routes for both.

Sounds like a nice place, and it's great that the owner is making disc golf available. Definitely don't harm those apples. Good luck with it.

It's a beautiful place. It's 138 acres working farm. Minus the U-Pick orchards and the Black Angus Beef pasture, there's about 80 or so acres the course covers. Played yesterday and was able to pick fresh & ripe nectarines and peaches. You just need to make sure you're paying for the fruit.

[Staple Gun]

Hi John. Just read through this thread and gained some awesome insight on how courses are designed. Thank you so much for taking the time to share everything with us!

I enjoy having a tough front nine and an easier back nine so even if I start off bad I still stay focused because I know I can come back and shoot a good score on the back to finish off ok, or if I survive the front then I'm very excited about my round because i know I can go really low. I realize above all you have to use the land you're given, but do you intentionally place easier/tougher holes in certain parts of the round to increase the enjoyment of the round?

[grodney]

Hi John. Over on the Iowa board, Chuck is discussing some of the Worlds holes with some of the players. He made the comment: "it was my observation during practice that younger players refuse to throw rollers even when that might be the best option".

Please note that with that statement, Chuck is NOT stating whether the hole is good or bad.

That is the question I'm putting to you: Can a hole be good if roller is the best option?

I'm not talking about best option for a few roller gods. I'm talking about a hole where for *most* players, a roller would be the best shot, whether they're very good at them or not.




ps - You have unanswered questions from very early in this thread!! Only 7-8 more months and you can answer them in person, though we always find other more important stuff to talk about.

[Sadjo]

John...we once talked about using the scenery of what surrounds a course or a part of a course. Is there a time to design a hole that takes advantage of great views when maybe another hole design might be more challenging but loses the beauty the course has to offer?

[johnrhouck]

Hey John, how have you been? Miss me?

Well, hello, Chris Hysell. Nice to hear from you.

I've been good, but it seems I'm unable to find the words to accurately express how much I miss you. Please accept my apology.

I've tried to follow your career, but when I Google the Russian Wrestling Federation I can't find you. Maybe they changed the name to RWE?

Anyway, I miss our old Fantasy Football rivalry and getting to shake your hand on the course. Maybe USDGC this year?

Talk to you soon,
John

[johnrhouck]

Hi John. Just read through this thread and gained some awesome insight on how courses are designed. Thank you so much for taking the time to share everything with us!

I enjoy having a tough front nine and an easier back nine so even if I start off bad I still stay focused because I know I can come back and shoot a good score on the back to finish off ok, or if I survive the front then I'm very excited about my round because i know I can go really low. I realize above all you have to use the land you're given, but do you intentionally place easier/tougher holes in certain parts of the round to increase the enjoyment of the round?

Staple Gun, I love that question. I'm going to mull it for over a little while.

I will say this: if I know that a course is going to be used overwhelmingly by people who have never played disc golf before (at leat in the beginning), I'm extra careful with Hole #1, and I'm almost as careful with the next few holes.

I'll get back to you with more ideas. Thanks for the thought-provoking question.

John

[johnrhouck]

Hi John. Over on the Iowa board, Chuck is discussing some of the Worlds holes with some of the players. He made the comment: "it was my observation during practice that younger players refuse to throw rollers even when that might be the best option".

Please note that with that statement, Chuck is NOT stating whether the hole is good or bad.

That is the question I'm putting to you: Can a hole be good if roller is the best option?

I'm not talking about best option for a few roller gods. I'm talking about a hole where for *most* players, a roller would be the best shot, whether they're very good at them or not.




ps - You have unanswered questions from very early in this thread!! Only 7-8 more months and you can answer them in person, though we always find other more important stuff to talk about.

What up, G? Thanks for the reminder -- I'm still hoping to get caught up on those old questions, because there are some good ones.

As for roller holes, I think a hole can absolutely be good if a roller is the best option for most players.

When you suggest a hole where a roller would be the best option for even players who aren't good at rollers, I get visions of some very strange holes. That might be going a bit too far.

As I mentioned in a recent post, I love holes where a particular player won't try the same shot every time. Rollers usually provide the potential for greater distance, and they usually involve substantial risk, so most good "roller holes" will at least cause a player to think, "maybe I should go with the air shot this time."

Hope that makes sense. I'm not a fan of courses where players wind up throwing a ton of rollers, but I do think rollers have a place in disc golf and can add to the fun of playing a course.

Seems like I had good roller success on Rolling Meadow #10 last time you guys were in town. I don't recall if you were in my group at the time, but I threw a pretty safe drive, and went with the roller on the second shot. That left me short of the creek but in good position to get up and down for a birdie. That roller was very satisfying, and I'll probably try it again... if I ever have another decent drive on that hole.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

John...we once talked about using the scenery of what surrounds a course or a part of a course. Is there a time to design a hole that takes advantage of great views when maybe another hole design might be more challenging but loses the beauty the course has to offer?

Another great question, Sadjo.

Scenery is always an important part of disc golf.

For me, course design involves a lot of decision-making. And a lot of the decisions you make involve trade-offs. I can make an amazing hole over here, but there's no good way to get back -- is it worth it to make that trade? If I make this hole longer, I'll have to make that hole shorter -- does that swap make the course better?

So if I can get an amazing view, but I have to sacrifice challenge to do it... hmmm. The bottom line is creating the best overall experience for the player. So if you already have a few nice views but not enough challenge, maybe you go for the challenge. If your course is already testing people, you probably want the view.

There are definitely players for whom beauty is the #1 criterion. I've seen some of the world's best players fall in love with courses that really weren't that well designed, because the course just looked great. That's absolutely their right.

Obviously we want to have a great design and great beauty as much as possible. I would just urge designers not to overlook the impact great scenery can have on a player's enjoyment.

Thanks again,
John

[chrishysell]

Well, hello, Chris Hysell. Nice to hear from you.

I've been good, but it seems I'm unable to find the words to accurately express how much I miss you. Please accept my apology.

I've tried to follow your career, but when I Google the Russian Wrestling Federation I can't find you. Maybe they changed the name to RWE?

Anyway, I miss our old Fantasy Football rivalry and getting to shake your hand on the course. Maybe USDGC this year?

Talk to you soon,
John

I gave up the gig as a russian wrestler. I grew hair when I found out the Mr Clean job had been filled. I will see you somewhere soon. No USDGC for me this year in my plans. Maybe next year.

[grodney]

Thanks John.

I guess this is the hole we're talking about (see below). Sounds like it was playing about 285.

I don't know what to think about this, not having seen the hole. But my first thought is that if a 285 foot hole is so tight (or so finicky) that roller is your best option, then it's not a good hole, and saying "you should roll it" doesn't excuse it. Of course you work with what you've got, I know. And I probably have an anti-roller bias.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/463/d351c735.jpg


http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/463/197d70ce.jpg

Chuck's explanation of how it played vs the photos: "The long pin played is to the left along the brush line and about 25 feet longer. The greenery near the tee was trimmed back plus brush along the ground about halfway there on the left."

[johnrhouck]

Oh. I see what you mean.

When I looked at your question, I immediately thought about holes where a roller could get you extra distance. Par 4's and 5's, basically.

Let me think on this one; I think I know now where you're going.

Thanks,
John

[grodney]

Ha, don't think too hard -- I don't think I'm going anywhere, I think I'm already there!

It goes like this:
Rodney steps up to a one-shot hole. It looks stupidly tight or littered with random trees. Rodney says "This hole is stupid.". Somebody else says: "It's not stupid, it's a roller hole.". Rodney says "That's stupid.".

There's not a lot of depth here, I don't think. Just wondering your thoughts. So thanks in advance for any and all analysis.

[Porkchop]

It goes like this:
Rodney steps up to a one-shot hole. It looks stupidly tight or littered with random trees. Rodney says "This hole is stupid.". Somebody else says: "It's not stupid, it's a roller hole.". Rodney says "That's stupid.".

I concur ...... man I wish I was a fly on the wall when You, Clue and Kenton get together :popcorn:

[Sadjo]

John - when figuring the par of a hole, do you consider distance plus obstacles or do you consider what top players should shoot on a hole versus the average weekend hacker?

[Gregor]

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but are you going to be involved in putting 14-18 back in at the Ridge Bible Church in Austin? If so will it be the same? Any other plans for improvement to that awesome raw course? Thanks,

Greg

[Rightbench2004]

Hi John, I haven't read this whole forum yet, so this may already be answered but :

Im interested in putting in a course in my hometown *Simi Valley CA* and i've found a rarely used park that i think would be great for a course.

Im wondering about the best ways to approach the city with my ideas??

Here's some of my thoughts:
It would benefit the community and promote disc golf by being visible and available to the public
It would be beneficial for the park because it would promote usage
It would be beneficial for the DG community as the closest courses are 40 miles one way and 40 miles the other way (with a smaller 9 hole course about 20 miles away) ((i know lots of guys that are stuck in this middle area and don't play very often because of the commute))
It would be great to give a boyscout an opportunity to do a great eagle scout project. (my fiancee's father is good friends with the local scoutmaster)
The land is condusive to an 18 hole course


anyways... im just not sure who to contact specifically and how i should present everything (whether that's preplanned, as an idea, on paper, onsite etc... )

any info would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks
Matt

[johnrhouck]

Hello Everyone!

Just wanted to log on and let you know that John has been traveling the last 2 months and crazy busy designing 2 courses in Selah Ranch in Texas and one in Hillcrest Farm on Prince Edward Island, Canada.

He wants you all to know that he will log on in the next week or so to catch up on the questions. Thanks for your patience.

Dee for John H.

[Sadjo]

John,

I enjoyed talking with you at the USDGC.

I hear a lot of people saying in my area of SC the we need a World Class or Championship Caliber Course. It seems that most of these players are thinking primarily in length.

From your perspective of being one of the most well known course designers in the country, what makes a Championship Caliber or World Class Course?

[johnrhouck]

John,

I enjoyed talking with you at the USDGC.

I hear a lot of people saying in my area of SC the we need a World Class or Championship Caliber Course. It seems that most of these players are thinking primarily in length.

From your perspective of being one of the most well known course designers in the country, what makes a Championship Caliber or World Class Course?

It was good talking to you, too, Adam. Sorry we didn't have more time.

If you talk about a World Class course, I think you first have to make sure you have four key qualities that make any course superior: balance, variety, strategy, and character. And of course it needs to be safe.

To be truly World Class today, length is an important ingredient. But I'm talking about length in terms of real par fours and par fives, not making every hole 450'. I think you'd have a hard time making the argument that a par 54 course, no matter how great the holes are, would qualify as a Championship or World Class course.

Is there an easy yardstick? Not at this point. But I would say that you'd probably want par to be at least 60. But the most important thing is that the course rate high in the areas of balance, variety, strategy, and character.

Thanks,
John

[Sadjo]

John - there's a thread somewhere on the forum where someone said any great course has at least 6-7 'aceable' holes. When designing a course, do you consider having a certain amount of short holes that players would consider aceable?

[Cgkdisc]

I posted that comment but it wasn't necessarily 6-7 aceable holes but 6-7 deuceable holes with at least some of them aceable. Harold and John developed that idea while designing some longer courses with several other designers embracing that concept even on our toughest courses. Houck's current Jackson course at the IDGC has 6 deuceables: 7, 9, 11-13 & 16. Harold's Winthrop Gold has 7: 1, 3, 6, 7, 14, 16 & 17.

[johnrhouck]

Right now I do consider six deuce-able holes to be a minimum. In traditional golf, most courses have four par threes. But, for several reasons, I don't think we want to be there.

Covering the exact reasons would take a while, but for now let's just note that reachable (deuce-able, ace-able) holes is where we came from, and I think those holes will always be a very important part of our game.

[bayouace]

Right now I do consider six deuce-able holes to be a minimum. In traditional golf, most courses have four par threes. But, for several reasons, I don't think we want to be there.

Covering the exact reasons would take a while, but for now let's just note that reachable (deuce-able, ace-able) holes is where we came from, and I think those holes will always be a very important part of our game.

This gives everyone some potential for a happy round. Houck courses always seem to have a balance of "Uh Oh" and "Oh boy!" holes.

[jtencer]

What about birdie-able par 4s and 5s? I'm thinking specifically about hole 1 at Circle C which is a par 4 but isn't very hard to get in 3 if you've got a decent arm. Where does that sort of hole factor it?

I suppose what I'm asking is how you draw that line. Do you tend to err on the side of making the par too high so that the average golfer can shoot closer to "par?"

[Cgkdisc]

Ideally, you want more holes on a course of any par where there are more birdies than bogeys on average for the skill level the holes are designed for.

[grodney]

reachable (deuce-able, ace-able)

That's funny. After Chuck's post where he said deuce-able but not necessarily ace-able, I thought: Is there a difference? Reachable is a better word anyway, and to me it means both ace-able and deuce-able.

I mean, I'm having a hard time thinking of a hole that is deuce-able but not ace-able, let alone a *good* hole.

[optidiscic]

I think every hole should be able to be EAGLED but is typically not. What I mean is all par 3s should be able to be aced, 4s should be able to be 2d, and 5s should be able to be 3d. I don't mean its likely but it should be possible to Eagle every hole.
I'm not advocating overly simple design I just get annoyed by par 3s that have no line to the basket., Par 4s that even with a perfect drive you have no look at basket, and Par 5s where 2 perfect drives leave you again with no look. I don't care if the Eagle happens once a year it just has to possible.

[HCD Studios]

John,
I designed a course for kids last year and I am going to do 2 more this year. Do you have any advise for designing courses for kids. They will be middle school courses. Thanks.

[Cgkdisc]

I mean, I'm having a hard time thinking of a hole that is deuce-able but not ace-able, let alone a *good* hole.
I think hole 5 at Riverview in N. Augusta is a good example. The fairway is a 25 foot wide corridor thru the woods slightly up hill. The pin is tucked to the left of the fairway and steeper uphill about 45 feet. There's virtually no airshot to the basket and the smart shot is to just try to sneak around the corner a little bit or throw a skip shot which is tough to to do with the uphill rise. The skip shot done well can get you within 5 feet of the pin but unlikely to skip high enough to ever get in the basket.

I think these holes are about discipline to play the smart shot for a deuce chance from 20-30 ft rather than the magic shot for a drop in or ace. I think hole 6 on Winthrop Gold qualifies as a hole where playing for deuce is the best play even though in theory you can try to ace it. Holes 14 and 17 also fall in that category.

[Peterb]

Hole 13 at Whistler's Bend (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/gallery.php?id=2002&mode=gal) is a par 3 that is impossible to eagle/ace. There is simply no shot that would get you an ace there. Like Chuck says it's about the challenge of getting a deuce or simply making your par on the uphill. Another tough three is hole 12 in the C (long position) at Golden Gate Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1314). It is virtually impossible to ace this hole. I've played it hundreds of times and have only gotten a two twice, and both were on 80 footers...

[Cgkdisc]

Peter, we're talking more about reachable holes that can be deuced regularly but either the airshot isn't there but you can still park near it, or it's too risky to fly at it with OB behind/beside the pin. Maybe your hole 13 at WB is in this category but the one at Golden Gate just sounds like an extra long par 3.

[grodney]

I've played it hundreds of times and have only gotten a two twice, and both were on 80 footers...

I can tell you without even looking: This is almost certainly a bad hole.

Unless, of course, it's a legit 2-shot hole. But then, it wouldn't fit this topic.

[grodney]

Chuck, the Riverview example sounds reasonable. Would have to see it to verify it's not dumb, but it sounds okay as described.

[grodney]

I hate it when non-Houcks invade Houck's thread, espousing their own opinions.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~rodneyg/houcks.jpg

[UncleBob3230]

Contact all the discs manufactures and ask them for all the info and promo on benefits of a disc golf course is my best idea

[Cgkdisc]

That photo is actually Houck with four SF Giants fans.

[Peterb]

Peter, we're talking more about reachable holes that can be deuced regularly but either the airshot isn't there but you can still park near it, or it's too risky to fly at it with OB behind/beside the pin. Maybe your hole 13 at WB is in this category but the one at Golden Gate just sounds like an extra long par 3.

Yeah the hole at GGP is a long par 3. What makes it difficult is that it is a dog leg left then a dog leg right, all while throwing up a mini canyon. Big arms can try to go over the hill and drop in RHBH. I tend to throw a RHFH to maximize distance given the dog legs. At any rate, it doesn't sound like this hole is a good example. And I would disagree with grodney: it's an excellent hole. Maybe the toughest one at the course.

[grodney]

What % of time do you get a 4 on it?

[Peterb]

What % of time do you get a 4 on it?

probably around 15%

[ERicJ]

John,

There's a discussion going on about the pros vs. cons of water/creek OB on a tournament hole on which I'd like to get your opinion.

Summary
Say you have a medium-to-heavily wooded hole. The line-of-flight fairway slopes down and then back up. At the low point of the slope, about 1/3 of the way up the fairway there's a small creek crossing the fairway. This creek is sometimes completely dry, but sometimes has water flowing at most 3-4' wide.

The creek is close enough to the teebox that no player is going to lay-up in front of it.

Do you play the hole as "OB if surrounded by water"?


My position
My contention is that landing in the creek area is primarily a factor of luck. No players are realistically going to change their shot because the creek is OB or not OB. Making the creek OB does not increase the physical challenge of the hole, it merely further penalizes unlucky players beyond the poor lie and probably additional strokes they already have. I think good courses should test a player's skill more than their luck.

Opposing Position
One viewpoint on this hole is that the simple fact that OB is present adds a mental challenge to the hole/player that is worthy of penalizing unlucky shots.

My Justification
My stance is for casual water because I believe that playing the creek as OB is overly punitive for unlucky shots, and they'd play more fairly with casual water.

OB can be used for protection (e.g. Tom Bass (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=171) #14's wetlands or McDade (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=666)/LINKS (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2576) private property), but mainly for risk/reward. In this case there is virtually no risk/reward decision. Standing on the tee of this hole what are you going to do differently if the creek is or is not OB? I'm guessing most players will answer that question with "nothing". I'll agree that knowing there's OB on a hole will be somewhere in a player's head. But on the holes we're talking about it (a) doesn't change the shot they're going to throw, and (b) doesn't even really make them think about changing the shot they're going to throw.

On this hole no player is intentionally trying to throw a shot that lands anywhere near that water.


Good shots, no issue; make the gap, get up the fairway. Probably take a '3'.
Bad shots, will be in the rough with a tough lie almost certainly taking at least one additional stroke. Probably take a '5'.
Unlucky shots (good or bad) that clip a tree are possibly going to roll down into the creek area. From the creek area a player is looking at most likely and additional stroke vs. a good shot, probably taking a '4', maybe a '5'.

In my opinion, making the water OB is adding extra strokes to an already bad shot that probably has a extra stroke naturally. Why? That's not a "challenge". That's not separating score based on skill, it's luck. If there's little water in there anyway then it's certainly (bad) luck if you end up there. Good golf holes are mostly about skill, not luck. In most games of skill there is an element of luck. But most players will agree that they'd rather have their score reflect their skill that day rather than their luck. Two players can make virtually identical shots and hit the same tree. But the one that lands 6" from the other and in the water gets an extra stroke on top of the bad lie. Unlucky? Yes. Unnecessary? Also yes.

Disc golfers have this (mis)perception that "Ohhhh... it's water, it must be OB". Why? Where's that written?

Fundamentally it should be decided if the hole needs OB there or not. If it needs OB for the intent of the hole then it needs to be strung and played OB regardless of the water level (like is done at Circle-R). Playing the hole as "OB if surrounded by water" when the creek is sometimes/mostly dry is admitting the OB isn't necessary for the hole.

[optidiscic]

That photo is actually Houck with four SF Giants fans.

Is that a huge cat in the background?

[grodney]

probably around 15%

Yeah, that's a bad hole. For your skill level.

80-84% of the time you get the same score? Yawn.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[DiscChucker]

I hate it when non-Houcks invade Houck's thread, espousing their own opinions.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~rodneyg/houcks.jpg

Hey, I've met that guy that's on the second from the right! He's a really cool dude.

[cydisc]

Hey, I've met that guy that's on the second from the right! He's a really cool dude.

They're all pretty cool.

[cydisc]

Is that a huge cat in the background?

Chupacabra.

[DiscChucker]

They're all pretty cool.

:D

Side note: Not that many people here would get it, but I just realized that I meant the second guy from the left not the right. :doh: My brain was thinking one thing and my hands decided on the opposite.

[grodney]

:D

Side note: Not that many people here would get it, but I just realized that I meant the second guy from the left not the right.

Oh good. I didn't think I had met you, but didn't want to be rude!

[DiscChucker]

Oh good. I didn't think I had met you, but didn't want to be rude!

It wouldn't have been rude. But I am glad you didn't say anything before I caught it myself. Fortunately, cydisc's reply right after mine made me read my post again and look at the picture. This is exactly what I looked like when I realized my flub, :o.

So, I guess that's you that's second from the right?

[grodney]

Well, the 9-years-ago me, with Houck's head instead of mine. But yeah.

[johnrhouck]

John,

There's a discussion going on about the pros vs. cons of water/creek OB on a tournament hole on which I'd like to get your opinion.

Summary
Say you have a medium-to-heavily wooded hole. The line-of-flight fairway slopes down and then back up. At the low point of the slope, about 1/3 of the way up the fairway there's a small creek crossing the fairway. This creek is sometimes completely dry, but sometimes has water flowing at most 3-4' wide.

The creek is close enough to the teebox that no player is going to lay-up in front of it.

Do you play the hole as "OB if surrounded by water"?


My position
My contention is that landing in the creek area is primarily a factor of luck. No players are realistically going to change their shot because the creek is OB or not OB. Making the creek OB does not increase the physical challenge of the hole, it merely further penalizes unlucky players beyond the poor lie and probably additional strokes they already have. I think good courses should test a player's skill more than their luck.

Opposing Position
One viewpoint on this hole is that the simple fact that OB is present adds a mental challenge to the hole/player that is worthy of penalizing unlucky shots.

My Justification
My stance is for casual water because I believe that playing the creek as OB is overly punitive for unlucky shots, and they'd play more fairly with casual water.

OB can be used for protection (e.g. Tom Bass (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=171) #14's wetlands or McDade (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=666)/LINKS (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2576) private property), but mainly for risk/reward. In this case there is virtually no risk/reward decision. Standing on the tee of this hole what are you going to do differently if the creek is or is not OB? I'm guessing most players will answer that question with "nothing". I'll agree that knowing there's OB on a hole will be somewhere in a player's head. But on the holes we're talking about it (a) doesn't change the shot they're going to throw, and (b) doesn't even really make them think about changing the shot they're going to throw.

On this hole no player is intentionally trying to throw a shot that lands anywhere near that water.


Good shots, no issue; make the gap, get up the fairway. Probably take a '3'.
Bad shots, will be in the rough with a tough lie almost certainly taking at least one additional stroke. Probably take a '5'.
Unlucky shots (good or bad) that clip a tree are possibly going to roll down into the creek area. From the creek area a player is looking at most likely and additional stroke vs. a good shot, probably taking a '4', maybe a '5'.

In my opinion, making the water OB is adding extra strokes to an already bad shot that probably has a extra stroke naturally. Why? That's not a "challenge". That's not separating score based on skill, it's luck. If there's little water in there anyway then it's certainly (bad) luck if you end up there. Good golf holes are mostly about skill, not luck. In most games of skill there is an element of luck. But most players will agree that they'd rather have their score reflect their skill that day rather than their luck. Two players can make virtually identical shots and hit the same tree. But the one that lands 6" from the other and in the water gets an extra stroke on top of the bad lie. Unlucky? Yes. Unnecessary? Also yes.

Disc golfers have this (mis)perception that "Ohhhh... it's water, it must be OB". Why? Where's that written?

Fundamentally it should be decided if the hole needs OB there or not. If it needs OB for the intent of the hole then it needs to be strung and played OB regardless of the water level (like is done at Circle-R). Playing the hole as "OB if surrounded by water" when the creek is sometimes/mostly dry is admitting the OB isn't necessary for the hole.

ERic,

First, yet another quick apology to everyone for being gone so long. The good news is that I currently have four championship courses in development, all on great properties working with great great people. Second, I commend you, ERic, for such a thoughtfully-posed question. I really appreciate that you covered so many aspects of the situation, and that you presented a counter argument.

You make great points all the way through. And you've advocated a position that's almost sacrilegious in disc golf: that a decent-size body of water not be designated out-of-bounds. That's pretty bold, but your reasoning is excellent. As you describe it, putting a shot in the the creek definitely sounds like a matter of bad luck. There's no skill involved in avoiding a hazard that's so close to the tee, and only players who get a bad kick (and a bad roll, apparently) will get wet. Of all the people who make bad shots, only a few will find themselves in the creek, and two virtually identical (bad) shots can have very different results.

(As an aside, I hate to hear of a good creek going to waste. I'm not familiar with the course or the hole, so I certainly can't fault the designer. But as a general rule, when you get a good creek to work with, you want to use it to influence decision-making and/or to punish poorly executed shots. A 3'-4' wide creek is fairly narrow, so I'll generally be inclined to make the creek and beyond OB.)

If it's true, as you say, that the presence of the creek won't cause anyone to change his shot, then I wouldn't call it a real factor in decision-making. If someone says, “I sure hope I don't go into that creek,” that's just fear. When someone says, “I really don't want to risk going in that creek, so I'm going to play a different shot,” that's strategy. Based on your description, I completely agree with your assessment there.

Now for the bottom line: OB or casual? I think there's one more factor to consider, and it may be the overriding factor for me: precedent. Since creeks are almost always OB in disc golf, and since this particular creek might be legitimately OB on another hole, you risk confusing players by calling it casual. You definitely want to avoid getting into a situation where you're telling players that the creek is OB on holes 1, 3, and 5 but casual on 2, 4, and 6. My guess is that it's very rare for someone to go OB on your hole, and if that's true, I think I might actually want to call it OB. If it happens more than once or twice out of a 100 throws, then maybe I'm missing something in your description and need to reconsider. (Or maybe you'd want to call it casual on every hole.) But let me be clear: I think you are absolutely right to say that going OB in this case is just plain bad luck, and minimizing bad luck is a big part of good course design.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

What about birdie-able par 4s and 5s? I'm thinking specifically about hole 1 at Circle C which is a par 4 but isn't very hard to get in 3 if you've got a decent arm. Where does that sort of hole factor it?

I suppose what I'm asking is how you draw that line. Do you tend to err on the side of making the par too high so that the average golfer can shoot closer to "par?"


Good questions. Here's a simple rule I use: if you a have a good drive on a par four, you should be able to put a tee box on your lie and make a good par three. There might be a dozen or more possible good drives on a hole, and they should all leave you with a shot that's fair, fun, challenging, make-able, safe, etc. – a shot that has all the attributes of a good par three. On the best par fours, a drive that's not-so-good WON'T leave you looking at a sweet par three – but it also won't leave you completely screwed, either. If you miss the landing area or fairway but a little bit, a great hole will offer you the opportunity to make a great recovery shot and still have a putt for birdie.

The same philosophy holds true on par fives, too. If you have a good drive, you should be looking at a good par four. Well-designed par fives frequently reward GREAT drives with eagle opportunities. (But be careful: poorly-designed par fives often provide eagle opportunities to big drives, too.)

On par, the average golfer may not be able to shoot par from the long tees, which is why it's always preferable to provide tees that are designed for the average player, too.

Thanks,
John

[beastofburden]

John - What do you think about folks coming in and making modifications to your designed courses? Given that you're credited with the design in the long run, does this bother you?

My example is tees being moved @ Cat Hollow in Austin.

[gcr_russell]

Just had to say I love the article in the new DiscGolfer magazine. I would love to learn even more from you as I have read and enjoyed all the articles on your site, and of course this thread. In my pursuit of designing a local course I reference your articles regularly.

[ManU]

I need some input
we have a council person who supports DG and after years of loss of courses and a town of over 1 million having really only 2 poor 9 hole courses we may now have the ability to do something right and get some courses built

for a good quality 18 hole course how much land in general would be needed?
is 9 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 3 par 5s a decent ratio?

I recognize that hole length may be determined by the technical nature of the hole but in general terms what ranges of hole length should be incorporated for the 3s, 4s, and 5s?

any input would be appreciated

as for the land that may be available I think it may be a part of a 72 acre piece of land that might be gently rolling but not significant elevation gain/loss
the land may also NOT be heavily treed at present but the development budget could include money for same

thanks

[Cgkdisc]

John helped me develop this chart to estimate acreage needed depending on the maximum skill level of course desired and terrain: http://www.pdga.com/documents/course-design-acreage-guide
The 9 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 3 par 5s ratio is right in the sweet spot for a Championship blue or gold level course.

[Sadjo]

John helped me develop this chart to estimate acreage needed depending on the maximum skill level of course desired and terrain: http://www.pdga.com/documents/course-design-acreage-guide
The 9 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 3 par 5s ratio is right in the sweet spot for a Championship blue or gold level course.

Chuck,

With that chart what is Acre Factor?

[Cgkdisc]

The Acre factor is an estimate of the average width a fairway should be for that density of foliage. So for heavy foliage it's 100 feet (50 feet left/right) and for mostly open fairways it's 165 (83 feet left/right). You multiply the course length times the factor and divide by 43560 sq ft per acre to get the estimated number of acres. Obviously, there's non-utilized space in a course. But that's accounted for because you really don't need that width of fairway right off the tee. So the amount needed per hole is overestimated to account for the non-utilized property in-between and around holes. We developed those factors working backwards from actual courses on properties and what acreage was used/needed.

There's the old rule of thumb where you need about an acre per hole. Look at the Blue course on average foliage for average par in the middle of the chart and it's 18 acres.

[parrothead57]

Hi John,
I've played several of your courses in the Austin area and love 'em!

Question: Has any consideration ever been given to installing closer tee boxes for kids to throw from? We have a 10 year old that plays in our group and it seems she gets discouraged quickly. She only throws about 40-50 feet and I thought it would be cool if she had a closer tee box. I know its expensive to pour concrete but maybe pads or just a marked off area? I don't know how many kids play the sport but I bet they'd love to reach the basket in only 2 shots.

Also, rumor has it that a new course is planned for Dripping Springs. Please tell me its going to be a Houck design!

Thanks John, and keep up the great work!

[wkelly42]

Hi John,
I've played several of your courses in the Austin area and love 'em!

Question: Has any consideration ever been given to installing closer tee boxes for kids to throw from? We have a 10 year old that plays in our group and it seems she gets discouraged quickly. She only throws about 40-50 feet and I thought it would be cool if she had a closer tee box. I know its expensive to pour concrete but maybe pads or just a marked off area? I don't know how many kids play the sport but I bet they'd love to reach the basket in only 2 shots.

I played the Palmetto course at Blue Angel Park in Pensacola, FL, and they've got "Little Flyer" tees designed for young kids and total newcomers that are about 150' out from the basket. IIRC they're mostly straight shots, and are about the only way my daughter (9) and my sister (slightly older than 9) would have ever played the course with me. They have pretty small concrete slabs, but I'd think you could do the same thing with some patio pavers bought at Lowe's or Home Depot. They didn't allow much room for a run-up, but they made it fun.

One thing I've thought about doing on courses that don't have this is to make my own kids tees for my daughter, estimating 100-150 feet from the basket.

[weeman]

Hey John,

First thanks for everything you do for the disc golf community. You really are a true ambassador for our sport.

Second, I've been wondering this for some time and wanted to get your two cents on the matter. With different players having different skill levels, they will obviously cover a large area of land with their shots and their footprints. I was also reading about a course you designed in Massachusetts where you worked with the Army Corp. of Engineers about the environmental effects of the course. By clearing trees for fairways we are changing the character of the land, the amount of grass growing in the area and how rainwater flows throughout the land. Gradually, areas will begin to break down and erode especially on the main walking paths, near the tee pads and baskets.
In your course design, do you actively account for wear-and-tear that the land will encounter over time? What sort of erosion protection devices do you typically install to increase the longevity of the course? I imagine that this is initially difficult to pinpoint where the trouble spots will occur but do you utilize outside entities such as the Army Corp or analyze the environmental effects the course could have?

Thanks for whatever information you can share with me.

Wyatt

[New013]

Do you have any plans to build a course in north Carolina?

We need more courses with distance. The longest ones around are only about 5500 in length

[WorldsCoolestGuy]

John, quick question..... I'm sure you get asked this quite often and It may have been asked already in this thread but I couldn't find anything. So......?
-Is Course Design a full time job for you? I see that you have designed courses all over and I'm wondering how somebody would get into a profession such as Disc Golf Course Design? How do you acquire jobs? Do you work with a crew or just operate with volunteers? Do you charge for your design or accept donations of some kind?? Sorry for the "in depth" business questioning but I think we can all agree that Course Design, Traveling, Playing Disc Golf, and being outdoors, falls into the the category of a "Dream Job".... Thanks!!

[magictenor1]

I played the Palmetto course at Blue Angel Park in Pensacola, FL, and they've got "Little Flyer" tees designed for young kids and total newcomers that are about 150' out from the basket. IIRC they're mostly straight shots, and are about the only way my daughter (9) and my sister (slightly older than 9) would have ever played the course with me. They have pretty small concrete slabs, but I'd think you could do the same thing with some patio pavers bought at Lowe's or Home Depot. They didn't allow much room for a run-up, but they made it fun.

One thing I've thought about doing on courses that don't have this is to make my own kids tees for my daughter, estimating 100-150 feet from the basket.when I played there my son threw from those very short tees. I think it is a great idea to encourage kids and total beginners to play.

[grodney]

The timeless course-design philosophies of John Houck. Read carefully, read multiple times. So simple. So good.

"
From: jrho...@aol.com (JRHouck)
Date: 1998/05/18
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc


Here's a simple rule I try to use on long holes:

1. From the tee to the preferred landing area should be a good hole. That is,
you could put a basket there and have a good hole.

2. From the preferred landing area to the basket should be a good hole. There
should also be "good holes" near the landing area, with the holes getting
harder as you get further from the preferred spot.

In general, I think players who can throw farther sould have the chance to use
their ability to get an easier upshot, but there must be a penalty for
inaccuracy.

As for holes that only the biggest drivers can reach off the tee (400'-450' in
general), there should only be 2-3 per 18-hole course, and there should be
risk. Players who demonstrate huge distance should have a chance to save
strokes during the round, as should players with outstanding accuracy or
outstanding putting.

Perhaps the most important consideration is this: all players should have
opportunities to attempt great shots during the round. If they succed they
must be rewarded, but if they fail they must lose strokes. If they prefer to
play conservatively and don't make mistakes, their score should be in between.
"

[GLong]

I really enjoyed your article on course design in the new DiscGolfer magazine.

Also have played three of your courses - Austin Ridge was my favorite. Wanted to play Circle R but there was a private event being held the weekend I was in Austin. Hopefully next time I can check it out, and hope that someday the East Coast may see some of your design expertise.

[Hangtime53]

Do you recommend planting trees directly in front of the basket? . . say 10 to 20' in front. We have a new course in SW Missouri with a lot of mature trees that they've decided was not tough enough, so they planted dozens of smaller trees directly blocking the baskets. They may have accomplished their goal of making the course a few shots tougher . . but I have talked to several players who feel that the course has been sort of "cosmetically cheapened". The course has lost some of it's natural character. (Kind of like a golf course designer putting a bunch of pot hole bunkers in front of the greens just to get a higher course rating) What are your thoughts about this issue? Is a beautifully tree lined 200 foot hole considered bad just because it allows a direct flight for an ace?

[johnrhouck]

I really enjoyed your article on course design in the new DiscGolfer magazine.

Also have played three of your courses - Austin Ridge was my favorite. Wanted to play Circle R but there was a private event being held the weekend I was in Austin. Hopefully next time I can check it out, and hope that someday the East Coast may see some of your design expertise.

Thanks, Garrett. It's always good to hear that players like you are enjoying the articles and courses. As for Circle R, give us a week's warning next time, and maybe we'll be able to work something out for you.

And speaking of the east coast, I actually have two courses in the works. The South Pasture course on Nantucket Island is making god progress, as the local club is out there working hard at removing dead trees, limbing, etc. The first nine holes should be opening soon. I'm excited about having that one open, and I hope New Englanders will appreciate it.

I also just finished the design work at wonderful place on Prince Edward Island called Hillcrest Farm. That's a private course, and the Best family and friends are hard at work there providing all the finishing touches. The new pond we designed should be finished soon, and the course might be playable by the end of the year. We'll be postng some new pictures on our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/John-Houck-Houck-Design/154119344623917

Since they're on islands, both courses will require a little extra effort to get there, but I hope they'll prove to be worthwhile destinations.

Thanks,
John

[Jashwa]

Hi there, I'm new to this thread and to course design in general, but not to disc golf.

How are "blind holes" (not more than 400 feet long) viewed in course design? Is it considered a positive or negative trait of an 18 holes course to have seven holes that require disc golfers to go about 25 ft away from the tee to see the pin? I know that a lot of people enjoy blind holes because it usually means there are some good obstacles or elevation changes, but how much is too much on an 18 hole course?

[Jashwa]

In the above post, assume that all holes have accurate signs.

[discjunky]

My friends claim to have seen John out at Live Oak in San Antonio Yesterday, I can only assume that means good news for DGers around here.

[harr0140]

My friends claim to have seen John out at Live Oak in San Antonio Yesterday, I can only assume that means good news for DGers around here.

Remodel or finishing the redesign?

[discjunky]

Remodel and redesign I think.

[hookem41]

Hey Mr. Houck! Will from Tyler, TX here, me and some buddies drove up to Selah Ranch yesterday and played both Creekside then Lakeside, and even though they aren't 100% complete yet, W-O-W!! I couldn't log in one more time without finding somewhere to post a very sincere THANK YOU SO MUCH! Both of these courses were a real treat to play, Dave was really nice and talked a little about how much fun he had with you getting the courses designed and installed. #7 Lakeside has to be the most fun hole that I've ever played, and as great as the pictures are, they do no justice to portray the fun factor on these courses. I can't wait to find out what kind of deal is going to be offered for season passes, because we want to be able to go back and play these courses as often as possible! Thank you for these 2 true gems of championship disc golf!

Will H, Tyler

[johnrhouck]

Thanks, Will. That's really great to hear.

It's really gratifying that the handful of players who have visited Selah have been enjoying it so much. We're continuing to make final improvements, and since there's been so much demand, we're actually going to open it up for a VIP Sneak Preview for two weekends in mid-August. September is grass-seeding month, so after the Sneak Peeks there will be no chances to play until just before the grand opening at the beginning of October.

We'll be running these sneak peeks August 12-14 (Friday-Sunday) and August 19-21.

You can get all then information from the Selah Ranch Disc Golf Opening page on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/p...252772?sk=info

You can also e-mail cp@moment.net to register or for more info. Or call Dee at 512-970-9001.

We have room for lots of players, so please spread the word far and wide. Hope to see everyone there.

Thanks,
John

[johnrhouck]

By the way, Dee and I were able to make it to the Fly Mart in Rochester, so we got to meet a lot of new people and see some old friends. One guy we finally got to meet was Tim from DGCR, so we got to tell him in person how much we appreciate the great job he's done with this site.

We also held a raffle to give away a free HouckDesign Overview sign, and the winner was... CJ Hopper from Sugarland, TX. Thanks to everyone who dropped by.

John

[johnrhouck]

Let me try that Facebook link again:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Disc-Golf-Opening-at-Selah-Ranch/194670887252772?sk=info

[T-REV]

http://youtu.be/gEz179CJZaA

[gottafixit]

Seeing as this is DGCR I was wonder if you could share your thoughts on the rating system, and what aspects would a course require for you to consider it a 5 rating? Also should private courses get a pass ratings wise on some of the features one would expect at a public course?

For me many things come into play, course design, flow, natural beauty, course amentities(tees, signage, navigational aids, misc) but the one thing a would be 5 must have for me is multiple permanent player levels(multiple tees designed for different level players or multiple permanent baskets designed for different level players). Thoughts?

[DGRZ001]

You forgot to add "course designer" as one of your aspects :p

[johnrhouck]

Do you recommend planting trees directly in front of the basket? . . say 10 to 20' in front. We have a new course in SW Missouri with a lot of mature trees that they've decided was not tough enough, so they planted dozens of smaller trees directly blocking the baskets. They may have accomplished their goal of making the course a few shots tougher . . but I have talked to several players who feel that the course has been sort of "cosmetically cheapened". The course has lost some of it's natural character. (Kind of like a golf course designer putting a bunch of pot hole bunkers in front of the greens just to get a higher course rating) What are your thoughts about this issue? Is a beautifully tree lined 200 foot hole considered bad just because it allows a direct flight for an ace?

Great questions, Kent. Your first one about trees in front of the basket raises a bigger issue about obstacles anywhere on the hole: in the middle of the fairway, by the tee, or near the basket. The most important rule I use, and it's one of the most important design rules we have, is that single trees generally increase the luck factor on a hole. What we want to do is increase the ratio of skill to luck, and single trees usually work against us. The classic example is a skinny tree in the middle of a wooded fairway. Let's say three of us are trying righty hyzers. The first guy squeaks by the tree and winds up 20' from the pin. Your drive, only two inches left of his, hits the tree and kicks into the shule. Even worse, my drive goes 3 feet left of yours, misses the skinny tree, and winds up 25' from the pin. So the worst drive got essentially the same reward as the best drive. And two virtually identical shots got very different rewards. Basically, you got screwed by weak design.

There will always be times when two similar drives get different results, but our goal is to minimize that. The solution in this case would be to plant several trees and create an obstacle that's several feet wide, not four inches wide. People can make the case that perfectly-placed skinny trees force players to choose to one type of throw or another, and that is a good thing. But in general we want to create fairways that don't rely on thin obstacles. I think the absence of lone trees is one of the things players are really enjoying at Selah Ranch. The owners gave me almost unprecedented control of fairway widths and obstacle locations, so the only time you'll see a single skinny tree (over even a single medium tree) is when it's working with another tree nearby to create well-defined alleys. That's one of the design successes I'm most proud of at Selah.

To answer your specific question about trees in front of the basket, I'd say that as long as there are enough trees to create a wide obstacle, there's nothing wrong with the concept. Now, if the only routes to the basket take you smack into those trees, and you have to pray you miss them, then they're increasing the luck level once again. In general, making areas of the green that are more desirable and other areas that are less desirable is a good thing -- right now that's one of the areas where ball golf courses are really superior to disc golf courses. As always, you have to do it right, or you risk making your hole worse, not better.

As to your point about changing the natural feel of the course, I'm with you. You want any plantings you do to keep with the natural feel, even enhance it. I'm not a big fan of obstacles that look or feel artificial.

Finally, the answer to your last question is easy: I believe disc golf needs shots where a straight flight is the only option. Players should have to show that they can throw a dead-straight shot at least 2-3 times during a round. Of course, the widths and lengths have to balance for it to be a fair shot.... as always.

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you and everyone out there.

John

[Dave242]

Great to see you back on here John. I love your articles and your posts!

I do have a question about your philosophy of not having single/skinny obstacles in the fairway:

What we want to do is increase the ratio of skill to luck, and single trees usually work against us. The classic example is a skinny tree in the middle of a wooded fairway.
......
There will always be times when two similar drives get different results, but our goal is to minimize that. The solution in this case would be to plant several trees and create an obstacle that's several feet wide, not four inches wide. People can make the case that perfectly-placed skinny trees force players to choose to one type of throw or another, and that is a good thing. But in general we want to create fairways that don't rely on thin obstacles.


It seems you are focusing on the obstacle and not the airspace. If a fairway is so wide that it presents no real challenge, then leaving a splitter tree in the middle of the fairway half way down makes two separate and more challenging fairways. Now there are choices being made (forced on you by the hole design) and more likely punishment for not executing as intended - I would think that is a good thing on 2 fronts.

Does it not make more sense to focus more on the fairways/airways (the intended path of the disc's flight) and make sure that is fair than worrying as much about missing the intended airway?

An illustrative example is this flyby video (not the perfect example by one I have in hand that will do).

M7N5CQ2kVZg

My perspective of fair airways would be to leave the first splitter tree (larger dark bark with Y trunk) and then probably remove the 2nd and/or 3rd trees (thinner light colored).

How would you explain the point you are making above if there was only the first tree in place? (I realize you will not have a perfect perspective not seeing the fairway in person, so speculation is fine.)

[grodney]

I've never seen that hole in person, but from the video, it's borderline dumb. Especially if it's an example of "If a fairway is so wide that it presents no real challenge...".

(I know you said it's not a perfect example of what you were asking.)

[Dave242]

I have started a new thread here (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1173077#post1173077) so as not to hijack John's thread. I think this is a really good and interesting topic.

[grodney]

Dearest Lord Houck,

What's the haps?

Hope all is well.

What's the status of that Live Oak re-design (and any associated work to make it a reality)?

Thanks!

[johnrhouck]

G, it's good to hear from you.

The Live Oak project took three steps forward this week. We had a good meeting with the president of Northeast Lakeview College and several members of the College staff. The City and the College still need to develop and approve a legal agreement that puts everyone on the same page, so I'm hoping that will be done soon.

The City did begin a little bit of clearing on the new North course, so that was an important step, too.

Also, a major sponsor came on board this week. Not sure if I can talk about that just yet.

I'm very excited about the whole project and having three World Class courses in one location. The City, the College, and the LODGA are all working together, and I think Live Oak is going to become a real destination in the disc golf world.

I know you guys will be here in about a month. I don't think there will be any new holes for you to enjoy that soon.

[Bultx1215]

That would be very cool if it will happen. I won't hold my breath on the college, though. Northwest Vista took close to 4 years to get going I'm told. That college district moves like frozen molasses.:doh:

[jsc430]

Speaking of things in front of the basket...

Was there every any intent to have the hay stacks in front of the basket on #12 Creekside at Selah? I lost a ce valk in there so of of course i argued that it wasn't but i thought it was a unique obstacle too.

Bravo on the design of each course at Selah. Both are unique and great in there own way and an incredible destination together. Selah takes the disc golf experience to another level. I have a feeling that soon it will be the top rated course on this site. Your thoughts on Selah as the #1 course vs. some of the other greats?

Thanks for all you've done for disc golf here in Texas, Circle R is one of our favorite places to visit in the summertime.

[johnrhouck]

That would be very cool if it will happen. I won't hold my breath on the college, though. Northwest Vista took close to 4 years to get going I'm told. That college district moves like frozen molasses.:doh:

I know Northwest took a long time, but this situation is pretty different. For starters, there have been holes on Northeast Lakeview property for several years, and the whole project is very much a cooperative venture with the City of Live Oak. So I'm hoping it'll be a quicker process. In any case, it looks like it will be worth the wait. If it all goes as planned, this will be real championship disc golf.

[johnrhouck]

Speaking of things in front of the basket...

Was there every any intent to have the hay stacks in front of the basket on #12 Creekside at Selah? I lost a ce valk in there so of of course i argued that it wasn't but i thought it was a unique obstacle too.

That's a great question, and sorry they ate your disc. The hay has been there -- seasonally -- for many years. They line it up in the fall and slowly feed it to the cattle over the winter. So there's probably a lot less now than there was when you were there, and there will be even less a month from now. The hay bales do make a unique obstacle, but I am hoping that they'll be able to find somewhere else to store them next year.

Bravo on the design of each course at Selah. Both are unique and great in there own way and an incredible destination together. Selah takes the disc golf experience to another level. I have a feeling that soon it will be the top rated course on this site. Your thoughts on Selah as the #1 course vs. some of the other greats?

Thanks very much -- it is an amazing place, and the people are great. As far as where it rates, I'll just say that I've designed a lot of courses, and I think Selah is in a league of its own. But I'm hoping some of the new projects we've got coming up will measure up, too.

Thanks for all you've done for disc golf here in Texas, Circle R is one of our favorite places to visit in the summertime.

That's great. Thanks for that, too.

[Bultx1215]

Hey, John....Any truth to the rumor they are going to add another 9 to the backside of Boerne Lake some day soon? That would be super sweet if so.

BTW, it was great getting to talk with you last Sat at Circle R. Hope to do it again soon. Definitely in May at Worlds Biggest.

[donnyv]

Hi John,
I could use some insight on the redesign of a couple holes at a smaller park.
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1530&pictureid=21135

Background ~ Helping out the local parks and rec dept redesign a few holes from their original 9-hole design. We made the course a little longer since original design was pretty bunched together. We also suggested the dual (pro/am) tees which will help keep everyone happy.


Problems ~ All the concrete anchors for the baskets were already in place since last year but some are under a couple inches of water. The excess of water is due to other alterations to the land, which has made numerous wetlands throughout the park with minimum drainage (hasn't dried up since late November) and it's clay soil. We had to move a few holes around and were granted permision to utilize a couple acres near the woods by the water tower.

Question #1 ~ Water does not drain too good in the clay so there are numerous wet spots where the original design had the basket anchors.
Is it easier to dig up the concrete anchors to move them to another spot or should we just dig another hole and use fresh concrete and anchors?

Question #2 ~ Holes 6 and 7 are not the greatest design (or area) but needed to keep the some kind of flow of the course. Any suggestions to maybe change it up a little or maybe change the order of the holes to make this work or flow better?

Question #3 ~ The practice basket could be used as an alt. (not marked by sign or scorecard) Hole #10. There are a couple trees near the basket area but it shouldn't be a problem in practice. Is it okay to have the practice basket near the end of the course? There is parking nearby but hole #1 is about 450' away.

Thanks for the help. I hope I didn't confuse you.

donnyv

[johnrhouck]

Donny,

Thanks for your questions. Let me start with a couple questions for you.

First, is this the map of the original course or of your proposed changes?
If it's the original, which baskets are under water in wet conditions?
I don't see too many trees on the course -- do people actually throw a left-to-right shot on Hole #7, or am I missing something?

It's a little hard to tell what's going on because of the low resolution -- not sure I'm even getting the hole numbers right. Is there a better version somewhere?

[donnyv]

Hi John,

Thanks for the reply. I've read many of your articles and hope to play some of the many courses you've designed some day.

RE: Questions
I think we resolved some of the issues. The map above is my 9 hole redesign I've been working on but we made a few tweeks this weekend which is not shown above.

I kinda stumbled onto this project by accident when we were looking for a new course. They were about 50% into the project when they started to run into problems with the land available. I offered my assistance to help them get the course up and running. They already had the basket anchors poured and some paths brushhogged last summer but they didn't realize the drainage and heavy brush problems the area would have until it was too late.

The original planned layout by the township had most holes wide open and under 200' with the tee areas only about 20 feet from the baskets. If I showed you their original design, you would cringe. I respect all disc course designers but this course was designed by someone with little disc golf knowledge and I wanted to help them fix the layout/issues before it was too late.

So....
We are going to pour new concrete for the pins and put new anchors in, instead of digging up some of the originals that are under water.

We came up with a different design for hole #7 so it will allow better flow to #8 and #9.

We are going to put the practice basket near hole 1 afterall.

The google map I was able to use is a little out-dated so you can't see the trees as well. Unfortunately, more than half of the trees are thorn trees witch are a pain in the rear to remove and dispose of. We're just going to remove what we have to for safety reasons and use the remaining as an added challenge for the pro tees while the am tees will have clear paths and less thorn trees.

I think we'll be okay after all. It is what it is, a small 9-holer with some small challenges. It will never be a "championship caliber" course by any means but it will be a welcome addition to a course-less area.

Thanks again John. I'm working on three other courses right now so I'm sure I'll have more questions down the road. Keep up the great work and let us know if your passing thru Michigan sometime.

Thanks,
Donny

[jenb]

John, I read with interest your article about walking the land several times over several seasons to observe the water levels and so forth. Given that you must be working on several courses at once over a considerable amount of time, have you developed any sort of system for keeping track of your observations made over time? What has worked best for you, and what didn't work?

[grodney]

Saw this pic of John on the HouckDesign facebook page. I'm certain it's not photoshopped, but it looks a bit like it, doesn't it?
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/grodney/jhpresents.jpg

Here's John presenting the famous Metalmorphosis sculpture in Charlotte:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/grodney/jhmorph.jpg

Here's John presenting the Kentucky Derby:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/grodney/jhderby.jpg

[hophead]

Hi John, we have a 52 acre park called Rock Ridge in Pittsboro NC and disc golf is listed in phase 2 of the master plan. I didn't see anything on your website about it but was told you were hired or contacted about designing it. Any truth to this and if so can you shed any details about the project? Thanks