1000'+ Holes: What do you think of them?

[Countchunkula]

I recently played Idlewild (including the 1001' Hole 15) and it got me thinking about these monster par 5's. Previously, I had played Stafford Lake's 1049' Hole 9 and Pinto Lake's 1200'+ Hole 11. I don't throw much more than 300' on a good day, so for me these holes are 3+ all out drives hopefully followed by a putt.

I'm curious what others think of this type of hole. I would think that really big arms would like them because they can pick up a stroke or two on the more average arms. Or does everyone just find them boring?

[cjskier]

I love them. However most courses just dont have the space for holes that long. We have a few in the Tahoe area that are over 1200'.

[S.Cann]

Played a 1000' foot hole at a tournament early this year. I was a BIG dogleg left that was fairly wooded. I shot a 7 the first round and a 6 the second.

[Chiefstang]

I'm a fan. Especially if they happen to play downhill...!!!:thmbup:

Everything can't be a 300-400 ft. par 3!

[WorldsCoolestGuy]

holes with that much distance "should" have elevation involved. Otherwise it's boring.

[Countchunkula]

Played a 1000' foot hole at a tournament early this year. I was a BIG dogleg left that was fairly wooded. I shot a 7 the first round and a 6 the second.

I think that a more wooded 1000+ would be interesting. All of the 1000+ holes that I have played were wide open. Pinto's did have OB on both sides though.

[smyith]

ive played some that are cool and others that are dumb (even if they were 300' i wouldnt have liked the hole). problem is the latter is my general experience with those. alot of the huge long holes are wide open and is just Max drive, Max drive, driver approach, putt. no obstacles are skill required besides throwing the disc.
The best 1000'+ i played was Big Creek in Polk City, IA. i think it was 1032'. very challenging yet FAIR fairway. i want to have to craft a line on every hole i play, not just throw throw throw.

[bikinjack]

At 1053', Winthrop Gold hole 5 has become one of my favorite holes. The combination of water on the left of the first two (or three) throws and trees with OB behind them on the right makes for interesting strategy on the tee and placement shots to set up for a throw across the corner of the lake on the third shot to get to the basket for a chance at a birdie 4. Or do you go around the water and trees, playing it safe, and probably wasting a stroke? Wonderful hole.

[jhgonzo]

holes with that much distance "should" have elevation involved. Otherwise it's boring.

Justin Trails Big Brother has a gargantuan hole that, IIRC, plays pretty flat at right around a quarter-mile in length. Nothing like the epic hole on Highbridge Gold, on which I always take a 6 or 7! I think the finishing hole on the now-completed Bear is over 1000' THROUGH woods and uphill...gotta get back to play that!

Wasn't the "runway hole" at Flyboy pretty flat and open ("slightly uphill")? I always thought that looked like the most blah/lackluster hole on the course from the photos, but I guess with the OB there's some added challenge.

[Countchunkula]

Here's Stafford Lake's Hole 9
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/774/3557ffaa_m.jpg

After the tee shot, it is totally wide open.

[UTTERBACK]

ive played some that are cool and others that are dumb (even if they were 300' i wouldnt have liked the hole). problem is the latter is my general experience with those. alot of the huge long holes are wide open and is just Max drive, Max drive, driver approach, putt. no obstacles are skill required besides throwing the disc.
The best 1000'+ i played was Big Creek in Polk City, IA. i think it was 1032'. very challenging yet FAIR fairway. i want to have to craft a line on every hole i play, not just throw throw throw.

Is this the one they call "The Beast"? If it is they must have redesigned it because it is about 800'ish now. I've played there a few times and that hole is well deserving of it's name. Shule along the right, OB left, trees near your landing zone, and up and over a hill the whole way. It makes you earn it.

[toothyfish]

I've only played one, 1500ft, down a ski hill. It was actually tough because of wind and the green was an island (roads around it, all OB) with several large pine trees.

I've only parred it once, usually blowing one of the drives and having it fade out or worse yet, turnover and blow way off course.

I do play an 800 ft par 4 from time to time. It's open, in a large field, so only a 50ft wide fairway is mowed, with high grasses all around, for most of the fairway. Usually, wind is a factor, too. Two full drives, a long approach, and a putt, if all goes well.

[Mike C]

I like them as long as they involve interesting elevation or obstacles. I think courses should feature more 500-1000' holes but I understand there isn't always space.

Hole 1 a Deis Hill is only 978' from the blues but its a good example of making a long and open hole interesting through the use of elevation, OB's and a hazard behind the basket.

[toothyfish]

I should add the 900 ft hole 18 at Warwick...okay, it's 100 ft short of the title of the thread, but requires well placed shots to set up each next shot. The hole has elevation changes, the main drive is out of a chute, two tree lines, and random trees in between the tree lines guard the entire middle of the hole. It is definately not three big rips and a putt.

[ManU]

what do I do?

hmmm
let me see

3 big rips (assuming I don't go OB)

and then 4 putts...cause I can't get the damn disc in unless I can drop it in

[JR Stengele]

I played a 1,300 ft. downhill hole at crystal mountain that was a par 3. I never felt so good parring a par 3 then there. It was on the summit course and I did it throwing a buzzz. I have also played the 1,200 ft. hole at Milo McIver, which was a long slow dogleg right and was very difficult. I like long holes if they are justified and challenging. The long open ones that are par 5 kill me.

[Countchunkula]

So it's looking like I've played the more bland 1000+ footers. I would love to play one involving big elevation change, a tunnel shot or a dogleg. The three that I've played were arrow straight, wide open and only slightly rolling (elevation wise). The main challenge for all three was length; with Pinto adding OB and Idlewild the long grass off the fairway.

[Countchunkula]

Pinto Lake's Hole 11
seen from above
http://www.2011proworlds.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/DSC_0593_1200-300x199.jpg

[weeman]

Countchunkula - During the KY State Championships, the long grass on the 1000 footer is OB and the island is in play. That always adds to the pucker factor.

For 1000+' holes, I've played a handful of them and most of them have been well designed. They've ranged from golf courses with perfectly manicured grass for rollers to obstacle ridden for shot placement. Like others have said, a lot of places don't have room for them but if they do I'm a fan. Risk-reward is key to their design in my book. Big distance players should have an equal chance of getting burned with a bad lie as shorter throwing players.

[Gonnagal]

Only thing I probably would do different is add more putts, ya I'm that bad!
what do I do?

hmmm
let me see

3 big rips (assuming I don't go OB)

and then 4 putts...cause I can't get the damn disc in unless I can drop it in

[timothyasteele]

As much as I like Stafford Lake, I think it's the most boring hole of the course. Someone needs to put a water hazard in the middle of it (to throw over), or plant a few more oak trees to force some interesting shots after the tee shot. And you can't even throw a good roller on it due to all the prairie dog mounds/holes in the middle of the fairway...

Tim S.

[smyith]

Is this the one they call "The Beast"? If it is they must have redesigned it because it is about 800'ish now. I've played there a few times and that hole is well deserving of it's name. Shule along the right, OB left, trees near your landing zone, and up and over a hill the whole way. It makes you earn it.

it used to go up that hill then about another 200ft straight back down the other side. past the grove of little trees and into an opening. i think this pin placement was created for Worlds. the short pin was right around 800 if i remember correctly.

[Peterb]

As much as I like Stafford Lake, I think it's the most boring hole of the course. Someone needs to put a water hazard in the middle of it (to throw over), or plant a few more oak trees to force some interesting shots after the tee shot. And you can't even throw a good roller on it due to all the prairie dog mounds/holes in the middle of the fairway...

Tim S.

I'd disagree with that Tim. The first shot requires you to gain max distance while not flipping over OB towards the golf course with the prevailing left to right wind. The second shot makes you choose a side on the giant oak tree 700 feet into the hole: make it past the tree and you should be good for a 4. Assuming you've accomplished the first two tasks successfully, you then need an accurate 300ft shot at the pin that has a low ceiling near the basket to get a decent putt and a birdie 4.

[SomeChump]

I played a tourney with a 1400' hole. The closest I came to getting a 3 was missing a 40 foot putt. Several pros deuced it during the tourney. Of course, the hole involves a 4-500 foot elevation change. If you've never thrown a disc 1000+ feet (that's far enough that you can no longer see it BTW) go check out some of these mountain courses out West.

[timothyasteele]

Hey Peter,
You're spot on with your assessment of the hole, but notice I'm not saying it's a bad hole, it's just my least favorite of the course. I think it could be improved upon, that's all...

Tim S.

[bradharris]

I think the most important thing for any long hole with par over 3 is well defined landing areas. When it's just two drives across a field, that's boring. But when you have to hit a certain point on the fairway to set up that next big throw, that makes a hole interesting and fun. If you can theoretically park it with a 1000' drive, it's not a fun hole.

[Brall]

love them

[bholy08]

played a 920' hole that had a dog leg and then 20 degress up hill, with a ob pond at the top of the hill in front of the basket...it was legit!

[DavidSauls]

Agreeing with all previous posts that there are good and bad 1000+ holes, and the good involve elevation and/or other hazards......

What makes the good ones good are trying to hit the sweet spot in landing zones to line up the next shot. And moreover, even for weak arms like mine, the fact that each subsequent "rip" after the drive is always different. You never land in the exact same place, so you're always having to figure out your next shot and execute it. Much more interesting than walking up to a tee, already knowing what disc you're going to use because you use it every time on that hole.

There is something to be said for an occasional hole that allows big arms to really air it out and use that particular skill to gain a stroke or two. Not too many holes like that, but a few.

[bholy08]

played a 920' hole that had a dog leg and then 20 degress up hill, with a ob pond at the top of the hill in front of the basket...it was legit!

J.P. Mosley Park outside Atlanta, Hole 9 and distance is actually 945'

[TheArnoldPalmer]

One day...

[Dave242]

ive played some that are cool and others that are dumb (even if they were 300' i wouldnt have liked the hole). problem is the latter is my general experience with those. alot of the huge long holes are wide open and is just Max drive, Max drive, driver approach, putt. no obstacles are skill required besides throwing the disc.

Agreeing with all previous posts that there are good and bad 1000+ holes,

Everyone here is talking about the good ones. What are the bad/boring ones?

IMO, we should be talking about all 600'+ holes (longer multi-throw holes) not just 1000'+ holes. (Several holes on the back 9 of Winthrop Gold would qualify.....when the yellow ropes are not in place).

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

holes with that much distance "should" have elevation involved. Otherwise it's boring.

Worlds coolest statement. wide open 1000 ft hole is dumb. 1000 ft hole downhill into a forest now that sounds fun.

[Countchunkula]

Everyone here is talking about the good ones. What are the bad/boring ones?

IMO, we should be talking about all 600'+ holes (longer multi-throw holes) not just 1000'+ holes. (Several holes on the back 9 of Winthrop Gold would qualify.....when the yellow ropes are not in place).

1000' is just a number. Feel free to include slightly shorter holes. In my experience, the two holes playing across the dam at West Lake Park in the Quad Cities are more difficult than any of the 1000' holes that I have played.

[Tragic]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=3037&mode=media#
Black Diamond DGC @ Emery Park in NY is a monster of a course from golds. Hole one plays 1,165 feet down a ski with a triple dog leg and thick woods on left/right. This has become the best golf course in our area in a short time period imo. Check it out if you get the chance

[NOStheBOSS]

Hole 8 at Phil Moore Park. 911 feet, and the first drive is slightly uphill. After that, it's wide open the rest of the way. I don't think I have ever 3'd it, as it would take two perfect max distance drives and a good putt. Meh

[bcr123psu]

It's all about design. You could have a 1,500' hole that is a total dud because it's just straight shots across a wide, flat field. You could also have a 1,500' hole that turns slightly here and there with some carefully placed trees to mess with your head a little bit, and a touch of elevation to make things interesting and to make for an awesome hole.

[Dave242]

1000' is just a number. Feel free to include slightly shorter holes. In my experience, the two holes playing across the dam at West Lake Park in the Quad Cities are more difficult than any of the 1000' holes that I have played.

Fairfield (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=329&mode=hi) (in Round Lake, IL) is one of the few long holes I have played that I think is dumb/boring (as is most of the rest of that course). It is 824' long slightly uphilll with woods lining the right side, but wide open on the left.

The dam holes at West Lake (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2418) are really cool and unique. I totally love them in that regard! However, IMO the risk is so pronounced and obvious (especially if there is wind) that they are not great holes IMO as you are forced to play conservative....or just be stupid.

[RightAJ]

holes with that much distance "should" have elevation involved. Otherwise it's boring.

^This. Flat 1000 footers, even if they are technically fun/difficult, get monotonous

aj

[Peterb]

Hey Peter,
You're spot on with your assessment of the hole, but notice I'm not saying it's a bad hole, it's just my least favorite of the course. I think it could be improved upon, that's all...

Tim S.

While it doesn't have that heart pumping quality about it that holes 1, 3, 6, and 17 have at stafford, I can't really see how to improve it. It is what it is, a fairly flat 1000' hole which is more open than wooded (like much of that course) but lacks the elevation changes that would make it more exciting. Still takes a lot of skill to get a 4 or a 3. I got a three once, somehow coaxing a star crow to go in from 290'.

[DavidSauls]

Everyone here is talking about the good ones. What are the bad/boring ones?



River Chase has 3 holes in the 1000-1200' range that are rather boring. It's on a ball golf course so the redeeming feature is seeing just how far you can make a disc roll. One starts with a big downhill, but after that it's pretty level.

The O.P. clearly had some in mind.

Winthrop Gold, without rope, comes to mind as well.

*

1000' is an arbitrary line, of course, but it's a different class from 600'. 600' is a drive and upshot for big arms, 2 drives for me. 1000' or more ups the ante, in either case. 600' and open is dull; 1000' and open is tedious.

[bikinjack]

Another hole, while only 821', that's a great 3 throw hole (at least for me) is Rankin Lake hole 6, long pin. It takes me three long, well placed shots to get to put for the 4. I've only pulled it off once out of the hundreds of times I've played it.

[Dave242]

River Chase has 3 holes in the 1000-1200' range that are rather boring. It's on a ball golf course so the redeeming feature is seeing just how far you can make a disc roll. One starts with a big downhill, but after that it's pretty level.

The O.P. clearly had some in mind.

Winthrop Gold, without rope, comes to mind as well.

*

1000' is an arbitrary line, of course, but it's a different class from 600'. 600' is a drive and upshot for big arms, 2 drives for me. 1000' or more ups the ante, in either case. 600' and open is dull; 1000' and open is tedious.

I had to look up River Chase since I had never heard of it. Surprise Surprise......a Reese Swinea course. :p Good point on the ball golf courses. I have actually yet to play any of them. One I went to I could not get a tee time and then there is one in Chicago I need to check out when I feel like I need to start loving disc golf a little less.

I dunno if 600' & 1000' are different classes really - just an extra throw. 2 & 3 drives (+ upshot if I screw up) for me and 1-2 drives + short upshot for the big arms (I have played Renny Gold 2, 11, 12 & 18 a lot with the likes of Jerm, Henry, Zach N, Tradd and DYG to see how they play them).

[joshmo65]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/126/c0b60757.jpg

934' from the gold tees. Ouch...

[jcrab66]

i will always remember the first time i played mc iver...about a week after the new millenium we went out there and started on 22 since we parked in the lot there and had no idea where we were going when we drove in, about a foot of snow on the ground and no good signage at the time...we played 22 no problem then went to the 23 (1100 + ft but didnt know it at the time) pad and launched, we knew the basket was around the corner but none of us had any idea how far, we kept on throwing until we finally saw a basket (and after digging several discs out from the snow)...when we got up close the basket said "24" on it so none of us could figure out how we could of missed the "23" basket out on the course...a short while later we figured out that whoever set the baskets had swapped 23 and 24 so we didnt actually skip a hole, it was just really long...prior to that the longest hole i had played was around 650....those were the days..

[DavidSauls]

I had to look up River Chase since I had never heard of it. Surprise Surprise......a Reese Swinea course. :p Good point on the ball golf courses. I have actually yet to play any of them. One I went to I could not get a tee time and then there is one in Chicago I need to check out when I feel like I need to start loving disc golf a little less.

I dunno if 600' & 1000' are different classes really - just an extra throw. 2 & 3 drives (+ upshot if I screw up) for me and 1-2 drives + short upshot for the big arms (I have played Renny Gold 2, 11, 12 & 18 a lot with the likes of Jerm, Henry, Zach N, Tradd and DYG to see how they play them).

Maybe the difference is subjective. For myself, I can tolerate a boring 600', but a boring 1000' is a bit tough to endure. 750' or 800' is my threshhold on that sort of thing.

But most of the monster holes I've played had enough O.B. and trees that I loved them (even if I needed both hands to tally my score).

[smyith]

Fairfield (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=329&mode=hi) (in Round Lake, IL) is one of the few long holes I have played that I think is dumb/boring (as is most of the rest of that course). It is 824' long slightly uphilll with woods lining the right side, but wide open on the left.

i thought it was 845'...but whateve doesnt matter. its not that bad. at least RHBH is forced to throw straight from the tee. and if you dont have the D theres the risk of going in the swamp...all tho the path has helped with that. the long grass can suck too. it does have some risk/reward to it at least.

[QUOTE=Dave242;994408]One I went to I could not get a tee time and then there is one in Chicago I need to check out when I feel like I need to start loving disc golf a little less./QUOTE]

Edgebrook is the definition of stupid courses. every shot is a max driver from the tee. the WORST $15 i've ever paid to do anything. if i had been better at rollers when i played it thats all i wouldve thrown from the tee all day. seriously Dave dont waste your time. i would rather be stuck playing hannah beardsley for the rest of my life rather than play edgebrook even one more time. without the carts and booze we wouldve left 4 holes in.

[jasonc]

Fairfield (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=329&mode=hi) (in Round Lake, IL) is one of the few long holes I have played that I think is dumb/boring (as is most of the rest of that course). It is 824' long slightly uphilll with woods lining the right side, but wide open on the left.

I believe it's 845' not that it makes much of a difference. However, you go downhill from the tee and then back up. With the new bike/walking path used as OB on the left, there is certainly more of a challenge than in previous years.

We also use the path as an OB line on 12 as well. While the recent course improvements (new teepad locations for #1, #9, #14 and #17 and a completely new #8 with a mando) have not allowed Fairfield to shed the "boring course" reputation yet, I have heard that more changes/improvements are coming soon.

[Sadjo]

The longer holes at River Chase could be much better than they are. If they had installed Flypads so you weren't limited by teeing from the cart path a lot of the trees would be better utilized.

#2...the whole rightside of fairway has a decent amount of trees. Could give a Timmons or Earlewood feel by moving the tee up and to the right.

#9...same as 2...move the tee and basket more right and you have a challenging wooded hole.

#10...move tee way to the left and put basket past the pond instead before it and you will have a great 1,000'+ hole with a large down hill throw...plenty of trees and water protecting the pin.

[kcplease]

if its a tousand feet, it better either be a par 5 or off a cliff...

edit-maybe a par 4. i hate blue valley in KCMO so much

[Danger]

I have not yet played a 1000'+ hole, however I have played several very long holes. From my experience, every hole over 700 feet I have played has been flat, open, and boring. It feels like they put them there just to say 'hey, we have a 700 foot hole.'

There are a few exceptions, all of which involved massive downhill elevation. Those were cool and fun. But park courses, I really don't see the point except for the designer trying to add a little swing to his balls.

[Stud Muffin]

I recently played Idlewild (including the 1001' Hole 15) and it got me thinking about these monster par 5's. Previously, I had played Stafford Lake's 1049' Hole 9 and Pinto Lake's 1200'+ Hole 11. I don't throw much more than 300' on a good day, so for me these holes are 3+ all out drives hopefully followed by a putt.

I'm curious what others think of this type of hole. I would think that really big arms would like them because they can pick up a stroke or two on the more average arms. Or does everyone just find them boring?

I will say it like this, in ball golf, most courses, in general, have 4 par 5's, 4 par 3's, and 10 par 4's.

Of course, disc golf is not ball golf. [Important]

Still, I would like to see some more consistency between courses, expected ranges. Like 4 par 5's, 4 par 4's, and 10 par 3's. [Disc Golf has always been par 3 centered, and I do not believe we should ever get away from that.]

That said, there is nothing wrong with having a 1000'+ par 5 that favors power players, so long as there are 200'-300' par 3's that favor accurate players, a balance of left to right, right to left, uphill, downhill, open and wooded situations. Par 5's do not have to be super long, but some well placed risk/reward OB can turn a small distance into a legit par 5, where par is the uncommon number, more 3-4's or 7-8's.

Point, not all holes should favor your game. Sometimes, a hole that goes against your game will help you grow more as a player, maybe try throwing some rollers for more distance, for example. There should be holes you can make up ground on, or recapture ground on. Consider it a challenge, not mission impossible.

[DavidSauls]

I have not yet played a 1000'+ hole, however I have played several very long holes. From my experience, every hole over 700 feet I have played has been flat, open, and boring. It feels like they put them there just to say 'hey, we have a 700 foot hole.'

There are a few exceptions, all of which involved massive downhill elevation. Those were cool and fun. But park courses, I really don't see the point except for the designer trying to add a little swing to his balls.

A regional issue, I guess. I've played a lot of cool, long holes that didn't involve great elevation.

[DavidSauls]

The longer holes at River Chase could be much better than they are. If they had installed Flypads so you weren't limited by teeing from the cart path a lot of the trees would be better utilized.



A lot of changes could be made to River Chase to make it a better disc golf course. Though many would conflict with the design constraints of mixing disc golf and ball golf. And, of course, short tees are always available.

One thought I had when I played was that on some holes, the disc golf could be moved off the fairway, across the cart path so the disc golf hole is between the cart path and the tree line, with everything beyond the cart path O.B. That would provide a more constricted disc golf fairway, often with trees.

Which is not to bash River Chase. Its purpose is to add disc golf to a ball golf course in a way that they can be played together and, with that design constraint, it's fine. Hopefully one a day a tournament will be held there, scheduled at a time that fits my tight calendar.

[optidiscic]

I have not yet played a 1000'+ hole, however I have played several very long holes. From my experience, every hole over 700 feet I have played has been flat, open, and boring. It feels like they put them there just to say 'hey, we have a 700 foot hole.'

There are a few exceptions, all of which involved massive downhill elevation. Those were cool and fun. But park courses, I really don't see the point except for the designer trying to add a little swing to his balls.

come to the east coast and play some of our wooded beasts, Iron Hill, Nockamixon, Nevin, etc Plenty of holes close to 1000 ft and through woods that are anything but boring

[smarkquart]

come to the east coast and play some of our wooded beasts, Iron Hill, Nockamixon, Nevin, etc Plenty of holes close to 1000 ft and through woods that are anything but boring

Several at Highbridge, several more at 700+ or more. These courses are too wooded, too many curves, and too many obstacles to give you the feeling that you have played that hole before, even if you had played that hole before.

My overall feeling on the thread's conversation though is this, unless it is something special like a Highbridge course, a community should not have more than 1 such long hole per 36 holes. Having one here and there gives the taste of it being marque even if it is abusive. Having too many just makes it a chore to play. Having only one amongst numerous courses (like a 1 to 100 hole ratio) singles that one course out as a must play that shames the other courses, or makes it the one course you should avoid.

For example, my home course is Elm Creek. Almost 3/4 of the holes are 380-420 feet and relatively open. Not exactly the length this thread is talking about, but the concept is the same. It just becomes repetitive and almost a chore to play. And likewise, the Twin Cities central area has numerous small course where it seems like you only ever play pitch and putt. Long holes are few and far between, making it worthwhile to drive a little further to Acorn, Bryant, Blue Ribbon Pines, Lochness, The Valley, Kaposia, and Lakewood Hills.

[Sadjo]

A lot of changes could be made to River Chase to make it a better disc golf course. Though many would conflict with the design constraints of mixing disc golf and ball golf. And, of course, short tees are always available.

One thought I had when I played was that on some holes, the disc golf could be moved off the fairway, across the cart path so the disc golf hole is between the cart path and the tree line, with everything beyond the cart path O.B. That would provide a more constricted disc golf fairway, often with trees.

Which is not to bash River Chase. Its purpose is to add disc golf to a ball golf course in a way that they can be played together and, with that design constraint, it's fine. Hopefully one a day a tournament will be held there, scheduled at a time that fits my tight calendar.

The original plans were for Flypads to be installed and not use the cart paths. Having lived in Union, knowing the owners of River Chase and one time working there part time, I know the course and property pretty well.

Hole 2 has a nice wooded section running the entire length of fairway and is probably 30-40 wide from the cart path to the thick woods. If they moved the tee area right 20 feet you'd have just what you're talking about...a nice, long disc golf hole that would offer a lot a challenge other than sheer distance...specially if cart path and beyond was OB.

Hole's 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 would all offer some amazing holes if that could be done.

I do think the water on holes 15-18 work well. Mostly wide open but lots and lots of water.

I've talked with the guys that own River Chase and they're open to moving tee pads but Disc Golf isn't a great generator of cash yet so they're not willing right now to invest.

Maybe we need to go with earth tees that would move five or ten feet forward, backward and side to side like the ball golf tees do and go ahead and move the tees now.

[thrembo]

I think the longer holes are necessary, for the pros, but rec/am holes should never be over 500' or so.

[DavidSauls]

I think the longer holes are necessary, for the pros, but rec/am holes should never be over 500' or so.

What do you mean by "rec/am"? Most Advanced (Am) players, and many Intermediate (Am) players, enjoy long holes---at least, good long holes.

[Mr Mirth]

I love 'em, and I'm not a big arm, so long as they're designed well. Incorporating elevation, obstacle and water on these lengths is necessary and always makes for good golfing.

I played Old English DGC (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2741&mode=hi) last week and being on a ball course, it's certainly long, but the elevations and water are what make it fun, forcing you to thoroughly consider your lines.
1000'+ can be most fun!

[denny ritner]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/126/c0b60757.jpg

934' from the gold tees. Ouch...

No ouch, that's a beautiful disc golf hole. (from the picture, haven't actually played it)

I see two primary fairway gaps that are fair and appropriately wide for the shot. On the tee, it's obvious to all, but a few that it's a three shot hole. Now, the question is whether to play a conservative 300-320 ft. shot off the tee or go for 350-400 with the goal of having a shorter third shot in mind. It does also appear to be roller-friendly and thus potentially reachable in two.

Options, strategy, a beautifully manicured fairway, very nice example of what disc golf can be. The only things that could be better would be elevation, and some shape to the fairway.

[optidiscic]

No ouch, that's a beautiful disc golf hole. (from the picture, haven't actually played it)

I see two primary fairway gaps that are fair and appropriately wide for the shot. On the tee, it's obvious to all, but a few that it's a three shot hole. Now, the question is whether to play a conservative 300-320 ft. shot off the tee or go for 350-400 with the goal of having a shorter third shot in mind. It does also appear to be roller-friendly and thus potentially reachable in two.

Options, strategy, a beautifully manicured fairway, very nice example of what disc golf can be. The only things that could be better would be elevation, and some shape to the fairway.

The perfect straightness is what makes it so difficult....a maddeningly straightforward execute or fail hole...I loved it...think I blew up but I loved it

[biscoe]

from a design standpoint it is difficult to design extremely good extremely long holes... imo designing a great par 4 (2 shot hole) is a piece of cake but designing a great par 5 (3 shot hole) takes a unique marriage of topography and design.

[joshmo65]

No ouch, that's a beautiful disc golf hole. (from the picture, haven't actually played it)

I see two primary fairway gaps that are fair and appropriately wide for the shot. On the tee, it's obvious to all, but a few that it's a three shot hole. Now, the question is whether to play a conservative 300-320 ft. shot off the tee or go for 350-400 with the goal of having a shorter third shot in mind. It does also appear to be roller-friendly and thus potentially reachable in two.

Options, strategy, a beautifully manicured fairway, very nice example of what disc golf can be. The only things that could be better would be elevation, and some shape to the fairway.

Oh, I agree that it is a great hole and is definitely a fair hole with the two lanes, but it is perfectly straight and if you duck off the fairway, you are in some rough stuff. Most people I know can't really throw straight, so it makes it a tough hole.

I really like it but have recorded a 6 and an 8 from the blues in my only two recorded rounds. :wall:

[optidiscic]

from a design standpoint it is difficult to design extremely good extremely long holes... imo designing a great par 4 (2 shot hole) is a piece of cake but designing a great par 5 (3 shot hole) takes a unique marriage of topography and design.

I agree that a quality par 5

Too often some designs incorporate a series of lay-ups or mid-ranges through the woods.....

I think you should be forced to drive in the woods or risk bogeying if you decide to play short controlled shots

Some courses don't give you anything but a series of putts or lay-ups in the woods...controlled distance is best IMO

[denny ritner]

from a design standpoint it is difficult to design extremely good extremely long holes... imo designing a great par 4 (2 shot hole) is a piece of cake but designing a great par 5 (3 shot hole) takes a unique marriage of topography and design.

Agreed. Most disc golf par 5's that I've seen are either crush-crush-crush-putt ala fly 18 or mid-mid-mid-putt through the woods.

imo a truly great par 5 needs to present an opportunity for eagle by big arms that are willing to gamble and accept a high degree of risk. For instance, both holes 2 and 18 at the 2010 Players Cup layout (both 950 ft.) were eagled. I watched Double G eagle hole 18 to force a playoff with Avery and then eagle hole 2 to win the match. Neither of these holes, however, qualify as great par 5's in my book as they don't have the requisite "high degree of risk" for those going for eagle. (Hole 2 had moderate risk and hole 18 had low risk)

The best par 5 that I've designed was hole 13 from the Players Cup Red Hawk layout of 2007 and 2008. (Note: the hole was inspired by a recommendation from Ken Climo.) It was also 950 and very eagle-able (although only 3 were made as far as I know), but had plenty of risk on the second shot.

The tee shot was a booming swing hyzer onto a severe dogleg left. That shot was much trickier than it appeared. Many players overpowered their drives, flipped too much and went through the fairway on the right, leaving a longer, more difficult angle for their second shot. Too much hyzer or too much height, however, left the disc in the fairway on an uphill/sidehill lie that was difficult for the run-up.

The second shot was the decision shot as it required clearing an OB golf green on a slightly uphill shot with OB also right and left. The carry was only about 320-340 for most players, but usually played into a wind that was gusting and switching directions. Players that elected to lay-up short of the green faced a difficult shot as the ideal lay-up area was small, leaving many players facing a third shot of around 300 ft. from a side-hill lie.

Those that safely cleared the OB golf green in 2 had an easy up and down for a birdie 4. To get close enough for a legitimate eagle putt, however, required taking on much more risk as the basket was tucked with OB, short, right, and long. Also, an aggressive second shot that flipped too much and went OB right left a tricky 300 ft. shot to get up and down to save par 5. (although it didn't seem to bother Matt Orum as he nailed that 300 footer for a birdie)

Bummed that I haven't been able to locate any pictures of that hole.

[Green Aarrow]

The Highbridge Gold hole is sweet, but hole 1 at Justin Trails' Big Brother is boring (not to mention annoying when you go into the rough on either side).

[Norcal]

As much as I like Stafford Lake, I think it's the most boring hole of the course. Someone needs to put a water hazard in the middle of it (to throw over), or plant a few more oak trees to force some interesting shots after the tee shot. And you can't even throw a good roller on it due to all the prairie dog mounds/holes in the middle of the fairway...

Tim S.

I think its pretty challenging and interesting, and I recently saw many quality players struggle on it at the annual pro-am. There's a large bushy oak that comes into play about 650' out- you have to choose to go left or right with the right being more direct but riskier shot. trees line the right side the entire length of the fairway and can easily come into play since the basket is typically on the right side. if you end up in there, you will be hard pressed to do anything but kick out. There's another basket position another 100' down the hill towards the lake- a tough approach with a lot of elevation and the wind coming off the lake. 4 is a good score and five feels like par relative to the rest of the course.

I managed to throw a decent backhand roller around the right side of the second tree at the pro am (long position). I think it might have been something special if it wasnt for the gopher holes. totally agree that a water hazard in play off the drive and second shot would be epic.

[thrembo]

What do you mean by "rec/am"? Most Advanced (Am) players, and many Intermediate (Am) players, enjoy long holes---at least, good long holes.

The title of this thread is "what do you think of them?" Well, thats what I think of them! If you or someone else thinks differently, so what. I much prefer a shorter course in the woods, with some shot variety, than a bunch of long boring open holes. That is MY OPINION.

[DavidSauls]

The title of this thread is "what do you think of them?" Well, thats what I think of them! If you or someone else thinks differently, so what. I much prefer a shorter course in the woods, with some shot variety, than a bunch of long boring open holes. That is MY OPINION.

Didn't mean to offend. Your post distinguished between "Pros" and "Rec/Ams". I was wondering what "Rec/Ams" meant---is that all recreational and amateur players? Or just players in the Recreational division (one of the amateur divisions). The former includes 970-rated Advanced players; the latter leaves out a huge portion of the disc golf population.

If the former, you're stating your opinion that holes shouldn't be over 500' for all amateur players. Not just what you like. And you didn't qualify it as "long, boring holes over 500'", as opposed to cool, challenging holes over 500'.

It's valid to say YOU don't like holes over 500', regardless of design. If your opinion is that no holes for amateurs, even Advanced Ams, should be over 500', well, it's still your opinion, but I'd argue that since many of the subject players like such holes, it shouldn't be so absolute.

[thrembo]

Didn't mean to offend. Your post distinguished between "Pros" and "Rec/Ams". I was wondering what "Rec/Ams" meant---is that all recreational and amateur players? Or just players in the Recreational division (one of the amateur divisions). The former includes 970-rated Advanced players; the latter leaves out a huge portion of the disc golf population.

If the former, you're stating your opinion that holes shouldn't be over 500' for all amateur players. Not just what you like. And you didn't qualify it as "long, boring holes over 500'", as opposed to cool, challenging holes over 500'.

It's valid to say YOU don't like holes over 500', regardless of design. If your opinion is that no holes for amateurs, even Advanced Ams, should be over 500', well, it's still your opinion, but I'd argue that since many of the subject players like such holes, it shouldn't be so absolute.


I believe that courses should cater to all skill levels. I understand the need for longer holes, for the pro and advanced players, and those of lesser skill levels who want to torture/challenge themselves. This can usually be achieved by having multiple sets of tee pads, alt pin placements, and by designing courses for different skill levels. I myself prefer shorter technical courses.

[DavidSauls]

I believe that courses should cater to all skill levels. I understand the need for longer holes, for the pro and advanced players, and those of lesser skill levels who want to torture/challenge themselves. This can usually be achieved by having multiple sets of tee pads, alt pin placements, and by designing courses for different skill levels. I myself prefer shorter technical courses.

Stated that way, I agree completely.

[Karl]

Too lazy to read the whole thread, but...

IF POSSIBLE, every course should have 1 of "everything" (that's possible). This includes a hole which will "help separate scores" of the big arms from the less than big arms (just as there should be 1 hole which "helps separate" tight-challenged throwers from those who salivate at tunnel shots, etc.

Karl