Whats wrong with Appalachian Courses?

[optidiscic]

Recently I have encountered what I like to think is an appalachian phenomena...tight unforgiving fairways that are IMHO not really fairways at all as they more often than not resemble woods or a walking path. I tend to see these messy fairways in northern appalachia moreso than anywhere else. Some examples can be found at:
White Tail Woods
Paw Paw
Idlewild
Orange Crush
The Monster at Fighting Creek
These courses are all highly regarded and are a ton of fun to play but I tend to think the fairways are a bit problematic. I realize its a style of play favored by players in this region but I can't help but think that they are missing out on some real fun. In PA, MD, Delaware, NJ and New York you can actually rip a driver through the woods and hold a line that if executed properly will garner a 300 ft lazer through the dense woods...impossible at most appalachian courses...if you stray off the fairway your playing appalachian style through the woods. Also I have noticed that the elite courses seem to employ what I call my 3 troubles Rule.
3 Troubles Rule of Fairway Design
There are 3 distinct troubles on a fairway: Trouble of the tee (early gap, tight lane, small window, hallway trees ,water etc.) Trouble Midway (gap from field into woods, fairway squeeze, water,knockdown trees) and then Trouble late guarded basket, water lurking, stream, etc. The rule is that no hole should ever have all 3 troubles....essentially that is a forrest with no fairway or water with no discernible fairway after, etc. ...I tend to think the best holes employ a safe zone and then trouble and then safe or trouble safe then trouble...In other words the troubles don't meet...you get a landing area after a tight tee off before your guarded approach. Or you have a clear tee off into a tough area and then a clear green. Its up to the designer to determine what's fair but to me it seems that appalachia is a bit behind in disc golf course design as they seem to be in love with mids and putters in the woods. A real shame as they have the best topography for disc golf in the nation. A 4 yr old could create a decent disc golf course there. I know its my taste but I think PA, NY, Md and DE are building the future of DG. Not slamming appalachia at all....different strokes for different players I suppose. I am no redneck machismo I just prefer my punishment to come when I misfire not when I hit the proper line. Would really love players and designers to discuss this.

[CwAlbino]

If I understand you, then I completely agree. I've always thought there should be a defined fairway or safe area, a small twig sticking out shouldn't be able to screw up a beautiful drive.

[optidiscic]

Yeah its tough to convey what I mean via message board but basically in many areas of appalachia your gonna get punished no matter what you do....I prefer my punishment to be due to my error. Dave242 puts it best when he calls these course gimmicky manufactured high pars rather than true high pars. Meaning a putt of the tee then a midrange and then another 2 putts to the basket......boring par 5....I prefer my par 5s to be 2 controlled drives an approach and putt.

[Dave242]

Recently I have encountered what I like to think is an appalachian phenomena...tight unforgiving fairways that are IMHO not really fairways at all as they more often than not resemble woods or a walking path. I tend to see these messy fairways in northern appalachia moreso than anywhere else. Some examples can be found at:
White Tail Woods
Paw Paw
Idlewild
Orange Crush
The Monster at Fighting Creek

Great topic! I wish I could participate (me being the Appalachian beauty guy and all), but I have not played many courses in that region.

I will say that Idlewild does not fit the description of what you are talking about above IMO. The only hole I think qualifies is #13 long.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/507/28a7227c.jpg

There are quite a few holes at with "Trouble Midway" and "Trouble Late", but I gotta chew on the "Rule" you are proposing since I think there are a ton of exceptions to be had in good course design.

[optidiscic]

I agree with you Dave its not a perfect rule as much as a guideline. I was just trying to somehow quantify what bothers me when there is no safe zone....many exceptions to the rule...I just prefer to have some kind of goal rather than my only goal being to not lose my disc. I don't mind trouble I just need some room to breathe. I prefer tricky approaches and one of the others either trouble off the tee or trouble midway.....trouble in all 3 areas without any relief is basically a tangled wooded mess.

[mashnut]

I agree Dave, I haven't played the others on that list but Idlewild has mostly pretty fair fairways, with some that are wide open. The woods are tough if you get off line, but you have enough space to get some distance if you can do it accurately.

[optidiscic]

Regarding Idlewild I felt that the failure of hole 5 was the extreme trouble midway and then late. I also felt 13 was a dreadful silly hole and I look back and try to envision a lane whenever I play I just didnt see it as anything but a poke and hope hole. Overall I felt the course lacked some landing areas on a handful of holes that would have added strategy and minimized chance without really making the course any easier. I felt a player with one years experience could get a 7 on some of the holes...go home refine his game and come back 5 yrs later and get an 8 on the same hole.......the hole simply might reward luck over skill.

[optidiscic]

I will give the example of Paw Paw I went down there and playe in my first year and took a beating on the woods holes...7 yrs later I consider myself a much better player (no expert) and I scored the same on these woods holes....my skill level is way better and I know a bit more about discs and strategy but I was still punished as if I was a noob. I prefer lanes and landing areas to a tangled mess of trees with no reasonable lane.

[Dave242]

Opti - Can you post some pictures of the fairways you have in mind as examples? Granted, most pictures are from off the tee, a few are of the basket and few show "Trouble Midway", but something is better than nothing.

IMO, holes that have players reaching for a mid, then reconsidering and grabbing a driver, thinking better of themselves and grabbing a mid, then saying "what the heck I want a birdie" and grabbing a driver, only to shank it off into the woods and kicking themselves for not playing smart......those are GREAT woods holes. (IMO, Idlewild does not have nearly enough of these.) Of course, you need some open-ish holes to demonstrate power and control (and reward those with those skills), and some purely technical midrange holes.....but it is decisions and executing to those decisions "or else" that makes golf golf.

[Dave242]

then saying "what the heck I want a birdie" and grabbing a driver, only to shank it off into the woods

Shanking a driver is not what I meant - what I should have said was "then saying "what the heck I want a birdie" and grabbing a driver, only to throw a great bomb but have it land and skip off into the woods with only a chance for a pitch-out".

[optidiscic]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/3338/c65bc517.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/950/d6814698.jpg
It's funny these holes I am talking about are never photographed..they are not really very pretty....the 2 examples are not very good examples but standing there in person is a different experience.

I agree with the cerebral aspect and kicking yourself afterwards for disc error or playing the hole wrong. I am just not a fan of when there really is no optimal way to play a hole....I would rather play a hole then just survive it.

[optidiscic]

I will take the woods over open field golf anyday its just that I like to think a lazer accurate drive should be rewarded vs just pot luck...give me a lane, give me a landing area to set up my 2nd drive, give me a tunnel thats wide enough to tempt me to drive beyond my limits of control.....I don't mind a wall of knockdown trees that encourages a technical second drive...FDR front 9 is driver friendly fairway golf with punishment if you err and reward if you execute. Northern Appalachia is often just is just punishment.

[Dave242]

Wait - this is an actual hole?!?! Where is the basket? How long is it? What course?

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/950/d6814698.jpg

This is sorta what I envisioned when reading your opening paragraph......only worse. (Its very pretty, but not a legit disc golf hole).
Recently I have encountered what I like to think is an appalachian phenomena...tight unforgiving fairways that are IMHO not really fairways at all as they more often than not resemble woods or a walking path. I tend to see these messy fairways in northern appalachia moreso than anywhere else.

[optidiscic]

The basket is way up to the left.....it is a very long steep uphill which requires a huge drive that is not reasonable given the remaining trees...there really is no fairway to speak of and the danger on this one is particularly nasty with steep gorges to the left....It's Orange Crush in West Virginia...it's an awesome once in a lifetime course but along the front 9 there are some rather odd fairways to say the least.

[optidiscic]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/3523/ce9af09e.jpg
Thats the monster at fighting creek..looking back down the fairway...yeah those woods in the background are the fairway!

[PanicKJ]

Living in NC I know all about this. Drivers are staying in the bag more and more and honestly I score my best scores when I go out and play with just a putter.

I don't know how many holes around here could be great except for that one tree in the middle of the already tight fairway and the little branches reaching down from the top.

[BrotherDave]

When it looks like you just put in some baskets in the woods, that's how you know it's not a good hole.

[Dave242]

I don't know how many holes around here could be great except for that one tree in the middle of the already tight fairway and the little branches reaching down from the top.

What courses and holes in particular?

[tistoude]

The picture posted by Optidisc does not really do justice to hole #4 at Orange Crush. There are clear, narrow routes to the pin and what makes it a good hole is that it is easy hole to par but you have to take a chance if you want a birdie. I have played Orange Crush about 5 times now and really enjoy it. I understand why some people do not like appalachian, heavy wooded courses but they teach you control and make you think hard before every shot. I love courses with defined fairways and safe zones but heavy wooded courses with "Trouble" in the fairways have their place also.

[grodney]

The picture posted by Optidisc does not really do justice to hole #4 at Orange Crush. There are clear, narrow routes to the pin and what makes it a good hole is that it is easy hole to par but you have to take a chance if you want a birdie.

Take a chance? Or take a chance and get lucky?

There's a difference between risk/reward and luck/reward.

I've never seen it -- I'm just asking.

[billnchristy]

You have apparently not been to GA, 3 different courses:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/1355/c71a5341.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2503/fcb9b4a4.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/213/61d09c16.jpg

Thats the way it is AND WE LIKE IT!

[Cgkdisc]

I think most like to 'get lucky' but we shouldn't be forced to 'be lucky' for success on a hole.

[grodney]

Ha ha, get lucky, be lucky, good point!

billnchristy, those are horrible golf holes. Err, I mean, by what I can see in those pictures, those are horrible golf holes.

[Frank Delicious]

Living in NC I know all about this. Drivers are staying in the bag more and more and honestly I score my best scores when I go out and play with just a putter.

I don't know how many holes around here could be great except for that one tree in the middle of the already tight fairway and the little branches reaching down from the top.

Like Dave, I'm interested to know what holes and courses you are talking about. I definitely shoot better around here with mids and putters but that is because the fairways are tight but fair and I have more control over my mids and putters.

Buckhorn is a good example of the tight but fair fairways. You can throw a driver off the tee on a lot of holes but it is smarter just to throw a mid off the tee unless you are desperate for a birdie.

[heelboycraig]

Shouldn't Redneck Machismo be involved in this discussion, seeing how he's the ringleader for having more, tougher wooded courses?

[heelboycraig]

This may be a potential bad hole. It's #7 at Highland Hills in North Wilkesboro, NC. I haven't played here yet (the course isn't officially open), so it might not be as bad as the photo indicates. But anytime the photo caption says the water is the fairway, it seems like a possible problem.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/3834/db12e5dd.jpeg
Here's the hole description: "Hole #7 Tee: "The waterfall hole". The waterfall is the fairway; basket sits behind on the right of the stream."

[optidiscic]

Exactly....risk/reward versus risk/luck....I also enjoy a crafty shotmakers course as well but I don't believe an entire fairway should be so technical that your balls are snipped and to avoid trouble you are forced to putt, or lay-up multiple times, versus going for it and ensuring disaster. Luck has a place in our game but should not be part of fairway design. (Orange Crush 4 is probably a poor example as there are driveable lanes to the approach area..I was just scrambling to find a pic for Dave242...if I played there again I would be more careful...however one clearly defined route to the basket area would have been ideal)

I enjoy trouble but as I staed trouble should be off the fairways, early, middle, or late...or some combination of a few of these....having all 4 troubles essentially is the appalachian design I was trying to convey...playing through dense woods..where you get through the first hurdle only to be met by a worse obstacle...I enjoy knockdown trees which force a clever approach I started an entire thread of the subject once....I am talking about those lanes to no where and walls of trees that force you to play as if you are playing "in your house" as dave242 described in his review of Idlewild"

[billnchristy]

billnchristy, those are horrible golf holes. Err, I mean, by what I can see in those pictures, those are horrible golf holes

The bottom one is not as bad as it looks, the other 2 pretty much are.

The top one is Herman C. Michael and it is a great little course...all of the seriously wooded holes are very short (total course length is 3350) so the trees provide the challenge since there is little or no distance.

The middle one is Fort Yargo and I don't remember this hole...its been a while since we played but there are a lot of tight gap holes, obviously the trees are more spread out depth wise as cameras don't seem to do depth or elevation well so its probably a lot more open than it looks.

Bottom is at East Roswell Park...its a tough course but there is always a line...somewhere.

[optidiscic]

The more time I spend in the Appalachian Mtns the more I think I might have a little redneck in me....lol...I was actually afraid someone might mistake me for someone who despises woods..I don't I love woods I also love PLAYING BIG IN THE WOODS...Thats what Morraine, Deer Lakes, Nockamixon, Campgaw, Iron Hill, Trap Pond, Seneca, Patapsco, Quakers Challenge, Tyler in the Cs, etc....allow you to do ...you are encouraged to play big in the woods if you have the skill....spindly branches and masses of immature trees and bushes have their place off the fairways...I am not skilled enough to carve these fairways up but I scramble from the woodlines and back to the fairway..I gain a stroke as my skill level doesnt garner par on these championship level holes...I don't see the fun of playing conservatively off the tee to have a chance at par....kind of like a Nascar Race where the entire 500 miles is run under the caution flag and the winner is whoever can pull enough tricks to get in first.....I prefer to go fast and save the tricks for when I need them.

[GLong]

I think you guys need to stop crying on your plastic. Yes it is difficult. Yes a few of these holes could probably use a tree or two cut out. But if you dont like courses like that, DONT PLAY THEM.

Personally I enjoy the challenge. You have to focus on every shot, and sometimes even good shots get s**t on. You have to make recovery shots, and you have to be tough mentally.

[Frank Delicious]

I think you guys need to stop crying on your plastic. Yes it is difficult. Yes a few of these holes could probably use a tree or two cut out. But if you dont like courses like that, DONT PLAY THEM.

Personally I enjoy the challenge. You have to focus on every shot, and sometimes even good shots get s**t on. You have to make recovery shots, and you have to be tough mentally.

I don't think you get what the OP is saying.

[optidiscic]

I think you guys need to stop crying on your plastic. Yes it is difficult. Yes a few of these holes could probably use a tree or two cut out. But if you dont like courses like that, DONT PLAY THEM.

Personally I enjoy the challenge. You have to focus on every shot, and sometimes even good shots get s**t on. You have to make recovery shots, and you have to be tough mentally.

Not crying Glong its a discussion board. You are from Baltimore I am curious if youve played any courses like what I am trying to describe...I don't mind a few gnarly holes that inspire creativity throughout and I don't mind portions of a hole that force you to flex your technical skills...it's just that the holes I am discussing don't give any reward for being focused and every hole plays like a string of recovery shots...not sure youve played these kinds of courses.

[GLong]

optidiscic, a lot of the courses you mentioned are more modern courses that have been designed with newer disc technology in mind, or have been updated to play longer. Of the ones you mentioned, Ive played Seneca, Ptap, and Trap Pond.

Seneca is the oldest of the bunch, and I dont think it's really a GO BIG kinda course. I played the tourney layout right before the Soiree with Brian Schweberger and Brian Skinner. They used drivers on maybe 20% of the holes. And check the scores - hot rounds were two 5 under 51s.

[Frank Delicious]

optidiscic, a lot of the courses you mentioned are more modern courses that have been designed with newer disc technology in mind, or have been updated to play longer. Of the ones you mentioned, Ive played Seneca, Ptap, and Trap Pond.
.

He didn't mention any of those as courses he had problems with.

[GLong]

maybe you should go back and revisit some of those courses with a chainsaw :)

[GLong]

yea i know frank, my point is that courses like that dont compare to the ones he is talking about. and i wouldnt lump seneca into that group, personally.

[tallpaul]

IMHO some of these issues are because designers are attempting to make holes that are higher than par 3s. Pin ball is one way to attempt to achieve this. I've noted this before, some of Chuck Kennedy's designs have gone about this is a "more proper way." i.e. tough woods; but a real (but small) landing area; perhaps followed by a dog leg after the landing area. If you don't make the landing area perfectly, you are sh** out of luck and are shooting a recovery shot. But, no pin ball action.

[tallpaul]

In other cases, there are some parks departments, who have strict enforcement policies regarding tree removal. I know of one local course, that has untrue fairways; simply because all trees here are considered "sacred". Slowly, but surely, designer continues to remove trees each time he goes out there; but he must do it in a way that is unnoticed. Persons in charge, who do not actually play, consider toughness to equal extreme toughness; and do not seem to realize that just because a disc can fit between two trees, does not a fairway make....:)

[Frank Delicious]

yea i know frank, my point is that courses like that dont compare to the ones he is talking about. and i wouldnt lump seneca into that group, personally.

So the good courses he listed don't compare to the poorly designed courses he listed? Tell me more.

[optidiscic]

yea i know frank, my point is that courses like that dont compare to the ones he is talking about. and i wouldnt lump seneca into that group, personally.

I was thinking of a few of the woods holes at Seneca that had lanes through the woods that were drive able..
I like playing different courses and having different experiences I notice everytime I go a bit south or west (appalachia) I run into these odd holes that I don't understand...when I bring it up I usually get a sarcastic masochist remark....as if getting beat down is some kind of shared religous experience and if I cant handle it maybe I should not play DG...I think this logic is flawed and that the courses I am referring to the designer has one foot stuck in the seventies (he wants to preserve the delicate finesse and weaving through the trees fun) and one foot in 2010 (he needs to keep up with the longer discs and length of todays courses) what you get is a confused layout that is too long to be a finesse and mid range gem and too convoluted to be reasonable for modern disc technology.

[tallpaul]

I generally do not support the "designers group only" mentality for designing courses...primarily because I think it's love of sport that pushed this sport forward; rather than income making. (I know, I know, I'm anti-American for even suggesting capitalism incorrect and is a way to enslave others, etc.). However, if designers are not players; these things will happen. Answer is to have designers who love the game; but are not in it for the cash. (Again, I know, anti-American). :)

[cheddapig]

i think that french creek is a perfect exsample of what hes trying to say about... even though the course is long and tight... as a local i asure you there are fairways on every hole... how be it small fairways... they are there.... you as the player have a choice when it comes to where you can play... you dont have a choice of what trees can be cleared... and neither do dsesigners all the time.. if you think the course your playing is to hard for you... either step your game up(<--- The Reason they are that hard) or play elsewhere... now courses in the mid westt and else where might develop some of the biggest arms but the "appalachian" courses will develop players that can hit 10 ft gaps 380Ft away... of course thats after the 10ft gap they had to hit 50 ft away go get to the other gap(and all the gaps in between) you will find peopel in the region love there tight courses/ and hate them at the same time... this is true with all great relationships

[Frank Delicious]

The "step your game up" argument is the dumbest thing ever. The course isn't designed poorly, you just aren't a top tier pro who can hit a 10' gap 380' away (which by the way is ridiculous). Some holes and courses are just poorly designed*.

*See Leigh Farm park in Durham for a good example of dumb fairways.

[Frank Delicious]

BTW I've shot quite well out at Leigh Farms so I don't need to "step my game up", it just has some poorly designed holes.

[optidiscic]

IMHO some of these issues are because designers are attempting to make holes that are higher than par 3s. Pin ball is one way to attempt to achieve this. I've noted this before, some of Chuck Kennedy's designs have gone about this is a "more proper way." i.e. tough woods; but a real (but small) landing area; perhaps followed by a dog leg after the landing area. If you don't make the landing area perfectly, you are sh** out of luck and are shooting a recovery shot. But, no pin ball action.

Isn't that what some negatively refer to as manufactured par.......and not a true par. Consider this most courses for 18 holes avg 5400 ft (300 ft hole) and par 54. Basically its 100 ft for every stroke of par. To go bigger we should be throwing bigger longer shots and thus as par rises so too should the avg throw rise.

Some food for thought
Iron Hill (18 Wooded Holes) 10045 ft par 72= 139 ft per stroke of par
Woodshed (7 wooded holes) 2506 ft par 29= 86 per stroke of par

Both are designed as par 4 courses but they go about it in drastically different ways. Iron Hill is longer and requires accuracy and control....Paw Paw is shorter and requires shorter shots and luck.

[PanicKJ]

I have attached a picture of hole 13 at Fox Chase. In the winter there is more than one route you can take however when the leaves are out the fairway closes up.

This is a 358 foot hole uphill. With the leaves out there is really no chance of getting to the hole. In the winter you can see the basket, however there are some little branches that you can not really see from the basket that will destroy you if you try to go for it.

Here is what makes this hole legit. It is a par 4. You can achieve a par if you can get a putter to the bottom of the hill. Then take two shots up the hill and make a putt. This strategy will not yield an easy par as they are still tight shots the whole way however if you mess up you will likely just take a bogey.

However you can try to bomb your drive through the tight gap, make it up the hill, and have 60 foot putt for Eagle if you make it. If you miss the eagle putt you will probably get a birdie. However if you hit a tree on your drive, and lets be honest, you have at least a 50% chance of hitting a tree on the drive, you could end up off the tiny fairway so far that you take a double or triple bogey.

Now describing this hole by itself it really doesn't seem that bad. The only problem with it is that hole 13 comes right after hole 12. I will show you hole 12 in my next reply!

[PanicKJ]

From the pic you can't really see the basket, however I assure you that there is a basket there and I think it is only 344 feet away. This hole would be much easier if there was not that tree right in the middle of the already tight fairway.

Also the low ceiling on this hole really hurts when there is a headwind most of the time. The headwind will take your dead center drive and push it up into the branches above.

If you are an amateur like myself then on your best day you have struggled to maintain par however this hole is the first in a line of three that will take your best game and turn it into your worst.

[Dave242]

In my estimation, the issue we are discussing is complex since there are at least 3-4 subjective elements coming into play in a very complex mix:
1) Skill level: The higher the skill the higher the distance AND accuracy (and putting, but we will leave that out since we are talking more about fairways here). BUT, not everyone of a certain level has the same percentage/make-up of D & accuracy. So, this is an area for argument/discussion.
2) Regional preferences: Most folks tend to like the courses they grew up in the sport playing on. If you grew up on wooded courses, open courses get boring. And visa versa. Nothing along this continuum is inherently right/true, so this is great fodder for argument/discussion.
3) Fairness: People have different tolerances/definitions for what is fair. Some people have a psychology where they take too much ownership of their problems.....and others are victims (blame the course).
4) Pride/Ownership: People will defend their home courses (others will trash their home courses). It is hard to separate protectionism from objectivism in online discussions.
5) Descriptiveness: We are from all over the place and do not have good overlap in courses played. We have a hard time all discussion the same thing.

I think the only real way to cut through all this is with data: scoring averages, scoring spreads, skill levels/PDGA ratings, etc. From that you can spot "unfair" pretty easily.....and make adjustments accordingly. More later (an example I have in mind).

[PanicKJ]

Okay
After you have struggled on hole 12 and 13 at Fox Chase they decide to give you an easy one. 228 feet. Just a simple downhill putter shot. Only problem is that you need to throw that shot down a fairway the size of a hula hoop!

This hole is really not that bad. The worst you should ever take is a bogey, however I have taken worse! The hardest part about this hole is that you just got your arse kicked by the last two holes which makes it tough to have the confidence needed to throw such a tight tee shot.

[bikinjack]

I generally do not support the "designers group only" mentality for designing courses...primarily because I think it's love of sport that pushed this sport forward; rather than income making. (I know, I know, I'm anti-American for even suggesting capitalism incorrect and is a way to enslave others, etc.). However, if designers are not players; these things will happen. Answer is to have designers who love the game; but are not in it for the cash. (Again, I know, anti-American). :)

Commie!:p

Answer is to have designers who love the game. This is true.

[Frank Delicious]

Hole 13 at fox chase looks dumb. 12 and 14 don't look so bad but 13 needs a couple of trees taking down.

The meet up I am planning there should be interesting.

[optidiscic]

i think that french creek is a perfect exsample of what hes trying to say about... even though the course is long and tight... as a local i asure you there are fairways on every hole... how be it small fairways... they are there.... you as the player have a choice when it comes to where you can play... you dont have a choice of what trees can be cleared... and neither do dsesigners all the time.. if you think the course your playing is to hard for you... either step your game up(<--- The Reason they are that hard) or play elsewhere... now courses in the mid westt and else where might develop some of the biggest arms but the "appalachian" courses will develop players that can hit 10 ft gaps 380Ft away... of course thats after the 10ft gap they had to hit 50 ft away go get to the other gap(and all the gaps in between) you will find peopel in the region love there tight courses/ and hate them at the same time... this is true with all great relationships

I love French Creek's new layout..it kicked my ass both times I went there. I will freely admit I am an intermediate level player.....but you are missing the point...French Creek has lanes and landing areas. Anytime I bogey there I essentially missed the fairway or missed my putt. The bogey was on me ..not the designer. To further my argument

French Creek 18 wooded holes 8283 ft at par 64=129 ft per stroke of par
Thats good wooded design IMO

Consider the last 5 holes at the monster at fighting creek in VA 1647 ft at par 17=96 ft per stroke of par
Thats poor wooded design

I know these things can't really be quantified mathematically but it kind of illustrates that your expected to make shorter throws in the woods in the appalachia style course I am trying to discuss

[grodney]

I think the only real way to cut through all this is with data: scoring averages, scoring spreads, skill levels/PDGA ratings, etc. From that you can spot "unfair" pretty easily.....and make adjustments accordingly.

That, Dave, is why I asked the decidedly non-statistical John Houck a statistical question. Namely: On a hole designed to be a 1-shot hole, what is the low-end threshold for what % of players should be putting after their drive?

Anything below that threshold, and your hole is suspect for being too long, too tight, and/or too luck-influenced.

(These questions get a lot more complicated for 2-shot holes.)

[bikinjack]

I need to go play Fox Chase. When you heading that way, Frank?

[Frank Delicious]

I need to go play Fox Chase. When you heading that way, Frank?

Check the NC thread next week for more concrete info.

[PanicKJ]

Fox Chase is rated as one of the top ten courses in the state. I call it my home course even though it is not the closest. These holes look a little more forgiving in person. However I don't have the accuracy needed to tame these tight fairways.

You should have fun there. I would like to know what your scores are when you go. Take a scorecard with you as the signs are wrong. They have a few of the par threes listed as par 4's.

[Frank Delicious]

You could just come out and see what we score in person.

[optidiscic]

These to me are perfect uses of appalachian woods...bringing tight trees into play but providing some route:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/3826/4bdbf0a2.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/3640/1f33987a.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/507/472c5a55.jpg

you get that crazy pinball punishment and insane creativity is needed to recover but theres a route and if you missed it..thats your problem to fix.

[Dave242]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5129&d=1273678746

I have attached a picture of hole 13 at Fox Chase. In the winter there is more than one route you can take however when the leaves are out the fairway closes up.

This is a 358 foot hole uphill. With the leaves out there is really no chance of getting to the hole. In the winter you can see the basket, however there are some little branches that you can not really see from the basket that will destroy you if you try to go for it.

Here is what makes this hole legit. It is a par 4. You can achieve a par if you can get a putter to the bottom of the hill. Then take two shots up the hill and make a putt. This strategy will not yield an easy par as they are still tight shots the whole way however if you mess up you will likely just take a bogey.

However you can try to bomb your drive through the tight gap, make it up the hill, and have 60 foot putt for Eagle if you make it. If you miss the eagle putt you will probably get a birdie. However if you hit a tree on your drive, and lets be honest, you have at least a 50% chance of hitting a tree on the drive, you could end up off the tiny fairway so far that you take a double or triple bogey.

Good description of the strategy of the hole. I've played the course just twice when it was brand new and my critique of this hole was that it needed a bunch of stuff cleared out way up high in the valley to give a more realistic shot at going for an eagle. I figured that since the course was new, they had not done that - it takes a trained monkey to clear out fairways (airways really) 30-50' in the air! Too bad the additionally trimming has not been done yet.

I thought as it was, this hole was a OK but a little weak - I played putter, Roc (LHBH) to an easy putt - it would be harder for RHBH as the basket is tucked in on the right (if I remember correctly). Of all the holes on the course, only this one seemed to pinbally to do anything but play conservatively (as you aptly point out).

From the pic you can't really see the basket, however I assure you that there is a basket there and I think it is only 344 feet away. This hole would be much easier if there was not that tree right in the middle of the already tight fairway.

Also the low ceiling on this hole really hurts when there is a headwind most of the time. The headwind will take your dead center drive and push it up into the branches above.

If you are an amateur like myself then on your best day you have struggled to maintain par however this hole is the first in a line of three that will take your best game and turn it into your worst.

Okay
After you have struggled on hole 12 and 13 at Fox Chase they decide to give you an easy one. 228 feet. Just a simple downhill putter shot. Only problem is that you need to throw that shot down a fairway the size of a hula hoop!

This hole is really not that bad. The worst you should ever take is a bogey, however I have taken worse! The hardest part about this hole is that you just got your arse kicked by the last two holes which makes it tough to have the confidence needed to throw such a tight tee shot.

Fox Chase is rated as one of the top ten courses in the state. I call it my home course even though it is not the closest. These holes look a little more forgiving in person. However I don't have the accuracy needed to tame these tight fairways.

I quoted these three posts of yours to demonstrate a point. This course seems designed to challenge Blue level (925-975 rated) players. I am not intending at all to insult you, but by the sounds of it your game has not yet developed to that level......and I hope it does so soon because then this course will be really challenging/exciting to you. If I were the designer, your commentary would be very confirming that I designed a course appropriate for a 950-ish player (my feedback for myself at some Gold level courses sounds similar to yours).

And talking about Gold level players: I imagine a lot of them (as well as some bigger armed Blue and White players) might feel claustrophobic on this course....and feel a little dinked and dunked after a round at Fox Chase.

Of all my courses played (250+) this is tied for #2 on my list with Steady Ed (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1869) at the IDGC. Both are designed intentionally (personally? :)) for me, a 950-ish player contribute-able more to my accuracy than my D. Both make great use of terrain, have a variety of uniquely challenging hole shapes, are very pretty and secluded, have some multi-throw holes and have some water in play.

[zenbot]

You could just come out and see what we score in person.
Cite this post as evidence after the multiple murders/suicides happen.

[Frank Delicious]

Cite this post as evidence after the multiple murders/suicides happen.

You think everyone is going to be that ashamed of being beat by me?

[zenbot]

You think everyone is going to be that ashamed of being beat by me?
You're the one with the insane master criminal for an avatar. You tell me, Detective.

[optidiscic]

Dave what do u think of my feet per strokes of par for wooded holes stats

[billnchristy]

Both are designed intentionally (personally? ) for me, a 950-ish player contribute-able more to my accuracy than my D.

Hi, I am Dave242 and Steady Ed was MY idea.

[Dave242]

That, Dave, is why I asked the decidedly non-statistical John Houck a statistical question. Namely: On a hole designed to be a 1-shot hole, what is the low-end threshold for what % of players should be putting after their drive?

Anything below that threshold, and your hole is suspect for being too long, too tight, and/or too luck-influenced.

Stan is that way too with his aversion to stats. Course design is an art I suppose based on gut level feel having watched a lot of players. In the mind of analytical/mathematical types, this "art" could/should be boiled down into acceptable length/width ratios.....but the artists would rather feel the math than be bound by calculations.

It is ironic to me that WR Jackson course at the IDGC is a Houck design that I feel has superhighways for fairways. Lengths are gold level, but widths seem overall way too generous to be punishing (very little "early trouble"). A design element I am not too fond of (not that my opinion is even worth the traditional $0.02) is used in multiple places: random trees in the natural landing zone. This "late trouble" IMO is not really intentionally negotiable/navigable off the tee when it is 350-420' down the fairway. It does often force creative shot making on the 2nd shot, but leaves something to be desired in testing the skill off the tee.

Houck's artistry is probably a lot more valid for his intended audience than I just gave credit for, but compared to reports I hear of Stan's recent designs at Elon & Nevin (and I have only played the first Elon course) these 2 artists have different tastes to be sure!

[Dave242]

Dave what do u think of my feet per strokes of par for wooded holes stats

I like it a lot. For similar levels of courses I think Scoring Average/Length is a good and valid way of measuring/comparing difficulty. Par is basically an expression of a scoring average (but for whom?), but I prefer to use SSA since "Par" has much less consensus/consistency/portability/specificity/etc than SSA.

"Difficulty" is simply a measure of how hard it is to navigate from the tee to the basket. What adds to difficulty is (obviously) obstacles. The more obstacles per length, the more difficult. Since the density of obstacles is a very hard thing to measure, it makes sense to use scoring average since that is in direct proportion to the density of obstacles.

A difficulty rating being too high does not automatically cry "unfair!" but it should raise a red flag. The "difficulty" you calculated is indeed pretty telling (telling of exactly what is the question!):

Iron Hill (18 Wooded Holes) 10045 ft par 72= 139 ft per stroke of par
Woodshed (7 wooded holes) 2506 ft par 29= 86 feet per stroke of par

[_.-Dut-._]

Fox Chase is rated as one of the top ten courses in the state. I call it my home course even though it is not the closest. These holes look a little more forgiving in person. However I don't have the accuracy needed to tame these tight fairways.


Fox Chase short tees makes a decent course, the longer tees seemed to have alot of holes that had poorly designed fairways.

[Frank Delicious]

You're the one with the insane master criminal for an avatar. You tell me, Detective.

Batman is the detective, I'm the guy he has to detect.

[zenbot]

Batman is the detective, I'm the guy he has to detect.
*rolls eyes* Yeah. I know how it works, Grand Admiral Thrawn.

[Frank Delicious]

*rolls eyes* Yeah. I know how it works, Grand Admiral Thrawn.

That's Mitth'raw'nuruodo to you, boy.

[zenbot]

Hey Dave. Out of your 16 years playing when did you come up with your review formula? Was it something you already had in the noggin or did it come about on this site?

[tallpaul]

Stan is that way too with his aversion to stats. Course design is an art I suppose based on gut level feel having watched a lot of players. In the mind of analytical/mathematical types, this "art" could/should be boiled down into acceptable length/width ratios.....but the artists would rather feel the math than be bound by calculations.

It is ironic to me that WR Jackson course at the IDGC is a Houck design that I feel has superhighways for fairways. Lengths are gold level, but widths seem overall way too generous to be punishing (very little "early trouble"). A design element I am not too fond of (not that my opinion is even worth the traditional $0.02) is used in multiple places: random trees in the natural landing zone. This "late trouble" IMO is not really intentionally negotiable/navigable off the tee when it is 350-420' down the fairway. It does often force creative shot making on the 2nd shot, but leaves something to be desired in testing the skill off the tee.

Houck's artistry is probably a lot more valid for his intended audience than I just gave credit for, but compared to reports I hear of Stan's recent designs at Elon & Nevin (and I have only played the first Elon course) these 2 artists have different tastes to be sure!

Mr. Houck designs, in general, tend to be in open Texas terrain and for bigger arms. At the Masters a weekend or two ago; I believe some of the legends of our game; i.e. Climo, Shultz, etc. called the Steady Ed layout a little pin bally; which would seem to indicate they preferred Houck style (i.e. a little more generous on the fairway) design.

[tallpaul]

Dave was ranting about this stuff down in Carolina years ago...:)

[zenbot]

That's Mitth'raw'nuruodo to you, boy.
Let's take this to the Star Wars thread.

[optidiscic]

Curoius what the shortest high SSa/par wooded course might be

[Dave242]

Hey Dave. Out of your 16 years playing when did you come up with your review formula? Was it something you already had in the noggin or did it come about on this site?

It came about when I got to around 30-40 courses played (years before this site started) and I could not figure out how on earth to come up with a meaningful way of rating courses (on my own personal list) that were very different from each other, but I enjoyed equally as much.

In 2003/04 I messed around with this trying to make a course ranking tool that was based on selectable objective (mostly) criteria:
http://www.charlottedgc.com/files/course_selector.xls

I was also influenced by the PDGA discussion on their course rating system.....that I disagreed with (and history has proven me right with the results or lack thereof).

When I published/transfered my list on this site, I finally felt compelled to capture in written words what my approach was (it was just in my head before), and I put that in my profile. It is probably worded about 50% as clearly as it should be.

Why do you ask?

[zenbot]

It came about when I got to around 30-40 courses played (years before this site started) and I could not figure out how on earth to come up with a meaningful way of rating courses (on my own personal list) that were very different from each other, but I enjoyed equally as much.

In 2003/04 I messed around with this trying to make a course ranking tool that was based on selectable objective (mostly) criteria:
http://www.charlottedgc.com/files/course_selector.xls

I was also influenced by the PDGA discussion on their course rating system.....that I disagreed with (and history has proven me right with the results or lack thereof).

When I published/transfered my list on this site, I finally felt compelled to capture in written words what my approach was (it was just in my head before), and I put that in my profile. It is probably worded about 50% as clearly as it should be.

Why do you ask?
I was just curious. It's difficult to objectively pick apart details that are often considered subjective. One of my favorite college courses was Symbolic Logic. Translating a written statement into mathematical form was the most difficult part of the class. After that you fell back on your formulas.

I still tend to review on an overall feeling about a course. I'm attempting to create some criteria for my next couple of reviews to keep myself consistent.

Keep up the good work.

[1978]

The hole that Dave pictured at Foxchase is fine, I've played it a few times visiting from Charlotte. The only think I dont like about this hole is that there is a fork in the tree behind the tree you can see in the front. It (out of sight)crosses the right hand side hyzer route. You think you made a great shot and then your disc just drops straight down. You have to walk down the hill to see what you hit. I have heard a lot of complaints about that branch and I think that just limbing that 1 branch would opinions of this hole much better, if anyone cares. If you can see an obsticle and you hit it thats your fault...its another thing when you can't see something and you hit it.

[zenbot]

I love how the end of my last post contradicts itself.

Keep up the good work.
__________________
Go frolf yourself.

[grodney]

I'm interested to play Houck's course at the IDGC. I've played 6 of his Texas courses (par 61-65) a *lot*, and I can tell you they don't have random-ish trees in the landing zones. Also, many of them, though seemingly wide open, had/have demanding windows off the tee.

[Dave242]

Maybe his WR Jackson design was intentionally a study in contrasts to Steady Ed. Who knows.....

Oh - I just realized that I did not give credit to where credit was due above (sorry): you developed and gave me the original version of that course selector .xls above. I expanded and modified it. BTW, I was never completely happy with it......but gave up with that effort and instead adopted the approach of "a picture is worth 1000 words" and extended that to "a video is worth 1000 pictures" and made the "Be the Disc!" videos and interactive web pages as the best possible review (preview really) medium for courses. Next step was to redo them with a steady cam and higher resolution......but then I moved.

[grodney]

Yeah, I still like that Course Selector idea.

Have a bunch of people "rate" a course on different things (signs, tee pads, design, difficulty, appalachian beauty, etc.). Aggregate/average those ratings, and hide them.

Then have each *user* assign a weight to each area. The system does the math behind the scenes, and tells you which course best suits *your* likes/dislikes.

[mashnut]

Yeah, I still like that Course Selector idea.

Have a bunch of people "rate" a course on different things (signs, tee pads, design, difficulty, appalachian beauty, etc.). Aggregate/average those ratings, and hide them.

Then have each *user* assign a weight to each area. The system does the math behind the scenes, and tells you which course best suits *your* likes/dislikes.

That's a really interesting idea, though it would be difficult to get meaningful ratings from different players at different skill levels for some things like design and difficulty.

[grodney]

Yeah, I don't know. I think people are pretty good at difficult vs easy, regardless of their skill level.

Design is certainly very subjective. But if you look at Dave's spreadsheet, you can see that an attempt was made to break it down into more objective concepts:
Elevation Variety
Shot Shape Variety
Tight/Open Variety
Shot Length Variety
Flow/Layout/Separation
Water Shots
Multi-shot holes

Not perfect by any means, but a step.

[optidiscic]

Everything in life is subjective...and thus open to interpetation....regarding appalachia I would say that relative to how dense the trees and underbrush are off the fairways that the paths to the basket are wide and clear.What a texan considers tight and hilly is flat and open to a mountain man.....you think I am kidding...check out these comment pulled from a review and then look at the course pictures of Seth Burton Memorial in west virginia:

Given the fact that the park is nearly flat (especially by WV standards) good use of limited elevation.

Primarily plays flat/across gentle portions of the slope,

Slight elevation is used on almost every hole
Thats the Locals perspective now take a gander at the pics and tell me the course looks flat LMAO!

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/1800/d7e94931.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/1800/2e9b0ef4.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/1800/ac7e5e4a.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/1800/68bf9a3d.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/1800/d3976bea.jpg

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?p=course_pics/1800/14339336.jpg

I guess a mountain mans idea of open and flat are quite different than a flatlanders!

[tistoude]

I guess a mountain mans idea of open and flat are quite different than a flatlanders!

Opti, I am guesssing that they played Orange Crush first! The Seth Burton hills are not so impressive after that hike.

[Beable]

Interesting thread, but I've always considered Pennsylvania to be part of Appalachia.