Design: Reward or Punish

[optidiscic]

Seems silly but I've been thinking about this......the best holes I have played provide a sweet spot, the prime lane, ideal landing spot etc. that sets you up for a birdie look. This places a premium on your tee shot and in the best cases you might feel that adrenaline/nervousness on the tee pad as you are trying to execute and hit that rewarding sweet spot........The worst holes tend to lack thes sweet spots (maybe I have not found them?) and just set you up for more and more trouble ...lanes to nowhere, no landing zone, elevated baskets that force a layup even after a great drive, fast greens without a safe zone, blah blah...
I will ignore all the replies who tell me step up and learn to play a tough course...whateva I admit I suck but I play the toughest courses on the planet and interestingly many of the gold design courses have rewarding designs and many lesser courses have what I consider to be punishing design

Probably not making sense but basically
imagine you throw a perfect drive and are met with an inviting look at a green REWARDING birdie look
Imagine you throw the best throw possible but are met with a steep sloped hillside basket protected from all sides and elevated with a OOB ravine nearby....you simply lay-up softlty while a player with a poor drive may be able to skip an approach and you both score the same thats PUNISHING

Anyone have any ideas or thoughts

If you troll this and tell me I am just not good enough I will hunt you down and take my Angst out on you :mad::mad::p

[biscoe]

imagine you throw a perfect drive and are met with an inviting look at a green REWARDING birdie look
Imagine you throw the best throw possible but are met with a steep sloped hillside basket protected from all sides and elevated with a OOB ravine nearby....you simply lay-up softlty while a player with a poor drive may be able to skip an approach and you both score the same thats PUNISHING


best holes have aspects of both reward and punishment (risk vs reward)...
i would not actually call your second scenario "punishing" from a semantic perspective but moreso "unrewarding". good shots should be rewarded, bad shots punished...

[GT Chris]

Probably not making sense but basically
imagine you throw a perfect drive and are met with an inviting look at a green REWARDING birdie look
Imagine you throw the best throw possible but are met with a steep sloped hillside basket protected from all sides and elevated with a OOB ravine nearby....you simply lay-up softlty while a player with a poor drive may be able to skip an approach and you both score the same thats PUNISHING.

I agree with you. It's all about rewarding good shots and punishing bad ones. But by the same token, some holes should have tough greens. I don't think throwing a great drive should always guarantee an easy birdie putt. As long as you have the best birdie opportunity. After all, player B's skip approach is tougher than your simple lay-up, and you at least have the choice to go for the birdie putt if you want too.

[optidiscic]

yes biscoe unrewarding is probably a better term

risk versus reward is another aspect of design that employs those risky lanes or go for it or bogey perched baskets...it's somewhat what I'm talking about but not exactly

Thinking of holes we have in common, like Paw Paw Woodshed #2 and #13 these are many people's favorites.....both employ a definite sweet spot to reward a well placed drive....not exactly risk/reward holes but they have their obvious sweet spots

I think theres room for a few unrewarding holes but often these holes fail to separate the field as recovery and catch-up are possible for lesser players...like me...due to ability to make a simple scramble recover and be in the same position as a top player...you...if you are playing it safe

My point is you should be able to play safe as a reward for that great drive and I should have to pull a miracle and not just make a simple scramble....just something I've noticed on what I call wildcard courses

[Karl]

Not saying you've done this Opti, but one thing to be noted in any discussion like this one (and a pet peeve of mine) is the mis-use of the term "risk / reward".

An example of a "risk / reward" hole is Pebble Beach # 18. The golfer is faced with a diagonal landing area (SE to NW) where the "more he tries to chew off, the shorter his second shot will be". If you "risk" something (and succeed) you're "rewarded".

NOT an example - but called such by MANY disc golfers - of a "risk / reward" hole is any tunnel shot where there is OB or trees down BOTH sides. In this case there is no 'risk'; you either pull the shot off or you die.

Also understand that it is incredibly hard (unless you're blessed with dozens of acres of wicked neat land to work with) to have EVERY hole different and prototypically perfect. Some "filler holes" are just going to show up (if for no other reason than to fulfill the "flow" requirements to make it a practical course).

Karl

[optidiscic]

I try to go with the 2/3s rule when I'm judging holes. I divide things into trouble off the tee. Trouble on the fairway/approach and trouble around the basket.
The best holes I think have 2 of these troubles and one aspect playing simpler or the sweet spot.
Examples
tee shot through a tight gap
semi open fairway
protected basket

Wide open tee shot
fairway over water
fast green

tight tee shot
tight fairway lane
wide open flat green

bad design would be
tight tee
over pond
protected basket on other shoreline

open tee
flat open fairway
basket in tree cluster

basically I want a hole to play tough but have that sweet spot to reward me and separate the field
why? Cause I hate when a hole comes down to only putting

[Dave242]

Not saying you've done this Opti, but one thing to be noted in any discussion like this one (and a pet peeve of mine) is the mis-use of the term "risk / reward".
.......
NOT an example - but called such by MANY disc golfers - of a "risk / reward" hole is any tunnel shot where there is OB or trees down BOTH sides. In this case there is no 'risk'; you either pull the shot off or you die.


I used to have that pet peeve, but it no longer bothers me. Risk/Reward is simply a decision AND execution.....usually with the most important factor being the execution. So, either way you are faced with execution being the important factor. The line gets blurry awfully fast.

This is why I combined the 2 in my attempt to "objectify the subjective" in my ratings system: "Holes with good risk/reward. Fair, but harsh punishment for bad decisions or execution."

The tunnel you mention DOES have risk/reward.....just not the same choice: You can choose play 100' putter shots and never go OB or bite off larger chunks and risk going OB. Your example would serve the purpose of what you are trying to say if you included a long water carry along the tunnel.

Where I have a pet peeve with the misuse of the risk/reward terminology is where there is just random poke-n-hope luck. These holes require no decision making and skill is not rewarded.

[Skunk]

Where I have a pet peeve with the misuse of the risk/reward terminology is where there is just random poke-n-hope luck. These holes require no decision making and skill is not rewarded.


You wouldn't be referring to Summit would you? :rolleyes:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=824&p=cc6dadab

[Dave242]

Seems silly but I've been thinking about this......the best holes I have played provide a sweet spot, the prime lane, ideal landing spot etc. that sets you up for a birdie look. This places a premium on your tee shot and in the best cases you might feel that adrenaline/nervousness on the tee pad as you are trying to execute and hit that rewarding sweet spot........The worst holes tend to lack thes sweet spots (maybe I have not found them?) and just set you up for more and more trouble ...lanes to nowhere, no landing zone, elevated baskets that force a layup even after a great drive, fast greens without a safe zone, blah blah...

I really do not like holes that have random luck designed into them. Those are the bad holes in my book.

But, what I hear you say when I read this is not that, but rather holes designed with intentionality and creativity. I cannot think of any hole like that that I cannot figure out what type of player that hole is designed for.

For instance, you say "elevated baskets that force a layup even after a great drive". If a layup is required, then it was not a great drive. A great drive would have put you closer, so maybe the hole was designed for a player who could get closer. Or......maybe this hole was designed as a two throw hole for a beginning player. You really need know who the hole was designed for and what the intention was of the designer.

I am not a fan of courses that have lots of creatively designed holes with 1/3 aimed at making the 250' arms happy, 1/3 aimed at the 350' arms happy and the last 1/3 for the 450' arms. For each of those types, they spend 2/3's of their time being bored. ......OK, only 1/2 of their time since it is still fun being out there and throwing.

[Dave242]

You wouldn't be referring to Summit would you? :rolleyes:


That course did pop to mind as I was typing. The holes that were really front and center in my mind though were a couple holes at Lemon Lake Red (IN), Lake's Edge (NC) and Oshtemo (MI).

[Karl]

242,

Looks like you and I could get into another disagreement discussion with this one but I've got no time for such...I'm within the minute going out to play some disc golf :thmbup: !

Karl

Takin' a better road....

[optidiscic]

Dave agree that laying up can be considered a form of risk/reward......its just not really fun
this type of risk reward reminds me of what I didnt like about Idlewild and a few other courses
I enjoy a pond that goes from 230 ft to 320 ft and I'm kind of debating to lay up, go around or try to fly over....or a choice of tight lane but then better 2nd shot vs safer but less rewarding special shot..etc.

I agree with your premise but it just cuts into the fun for me and I really do believe in fun over constantly employing strategic shots to set up boring series of 100 foot throws.

[Dave242]

Fun or not, we are often faced with it. Kilborne hole 6's long tee always comes to mind when I think of this sort of risk/reward. 369' with a narrow chute off the tee. I max out at 360', so with a good throw at almost full power (still in control....sorta) I should be able to get into putting range.....if even a long putt.

The reality is that this hole does not have a good scoring spread for me (not a good hole for me)......but it does for longer arms (a great hole for them). I go for it all the time in casual rounds, but when my score counts I play safe. It is not a lay-up necessarily for me, but a smooth 200' midrange out-shot that leaves me with an easy up and down. I still need to execute well on my out-shot or I take a bogey 4.

Let the 400'+ arms go for it and get their occasional 2.....and frequent 4. Getting a 3 is fun.....at least when the bigger arms get a 4. :D

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/470/1a75785c.jpg

[BrotherDave]

I am not a fan of courses that have lots of creatively designed holes with 1/3 aimed at making the 250' arms happy, 1/3 aimed at the 350' arms happy and the last 1/3 for the 450' arms. For each of those types, they spend 2/3's of their time being bored. ......OK, only 1/2 of their time since it is still fun being out there and throwing.

I'm probably misreading this partially but I like courses that go up and down the hole length scale, as opposed to every hole being around 280-320' b/c the latter become fairly monotonous once you get that range dialed in.

[Dave242]

.....and I agree with you about Idlewild. I called it "getting beat up by your sister" in my review.

[Dave242]

I'm probably misreading this partially but I like courses that go up and down the hole length scale, as opposed to every hole being around 280-320' b/c the latter become fairly monotonous once you get that range dialed in.

The main thing (but not the only thing) that addicts me to disc golf is the competition of me versus the course. Not everyone is like that.

Another thing is that hole shape and elevation add a ton of spice to things so actual distances can vary and still be appropriate in the challenge department. (I am talking "effective length" here).

For me, it takes an extremely special design for a 180' hole to feel rewarding. Almost no matter what, getting a deuce on such a hole is "oh well....whatevah....". Conversely, a 400' hole is almost always completely boring to me because I know I can never count on anything but luck to get a deuce. It is fun when it happens, but it does not make me feel "dialed in".....more of an "even blind chickens can find corn" sort of moment.

I have not played all the courses on your list, but many of them......and I do not think there are good examples of what I am talking about. But a really cool course (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3889&mode=hi) was put in last year close-ish to where I am now that epitomizes this. Most of the longs are too long for me, and the shorts are boringly short. They set this course up alternating Long-Short-Long-etc for a month or so then switch it to S-L-S.

I love this course for a lot of reasons, but it is boring in the scoring. In fact, on the back 9 yesterday I did not get a single 3 - all 4's and 2's.

[Danger]

^What about a course like Chavez Ridge DGC (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1109&mode=ci), in Los Angeles?

There are several holes on it that are under 200 feet that everybody 'should' deuce, however because of its location on top of a hill, it is not uncommon to see big arms getting 4's...or worse. Those feel 'alright' when you get a deuce but they straight up piss you off if you get a 3 or worse.

Some say that course is not risk/reward because the rollers don't discriminate between a good or bad throw. A great ace run even with a chain hit can get up on its side an roll down the hill. Nonetheless, the holes are short so this kind of IS the risk at the course. Others say the 'risk' is actually going for it, when at least at this course, most of your focus should be the disc landing angle...you want it to land and SIT.

I like this course because I can't throw far and its the only place that I can even fathom of shooting under par at. However, it IS difficult especially when you go for it and your disc fades into oblivion. Is this a risk/reward course or just a risk/reward/sometimes punished course? Does it even fit into your examples?

Here is a very specific example at that course. 180' with two obvious lines, mando left of the green tape, and an endless hillside on the left.
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/1109/40a3c5ab.jpg
(the hill gets steeper and steeper on the left. This photo makes it looks nearly flat....

[Dave242]

There are several holes on it that are under 200 feet that everybody 'should' deuce, however because of its location on top of a hill, it is not uncommon to see big arms getting 4's...or worse. Those feel 'alright' when you get a deuce but they straight up piss you off if you get a 3 or worse.

Some people find this plenty of fun. But for me if the majority of the course were like this, I would find somewhere else to play most of the time.

Some say that course is not risk/reward because the rollers don't discriminate between a good or bad throw. A great ace run even with a chain hit can get up on its side an roll down the hill. Nonetheless, the holes are short so this kind of IS the risk at the course. Others say the 'risk' is actually going for it, when at least at this course, most of your focus should be the disc landing angle...you want it to land and SIT.

IMO, this is mainly luck. Not really risk/reward. You do have to execute well to land correctly......but that is to minimize your chances of bad luck happening in the form of a disc standing up and rolling away.

Like Opti mentioned, if you went 120' putter, 60' putter, drop-in you would have made a risk/reward decision to minimize your risk of rolling away......but who in their right mind would ever make that decision?!

[Danger]

^Very true. Most people try to ace each hole, knowing that they can usually recover from the hill roll for a par. Interesting to read other perspectives on this...