Designing for a particular skill level

[DavidSauls]

This musing is about course design where, for whatever reason, there are not multiple teepads on each hole for blue-level, red-level, etc. players.

I've seen discussions about a course being for a certain level, or even holes being for a certain level golfer. I'm wondering whether a course really should be targeted to a particular skill level.

After all, players spanning a range of abilities are sure to play it.

It's tough to be all things for all people, of course, but it seems if a course has a variety of gold-level, blue-level, maybe even white-level holes, it'll be preferable overall than one that has, say, all blue-level holes.

It also seems that many well-designed holes are perfectly suitable across a range of play. One might average 3.7 for gold players and 4.3 for blue (or whatever), but can be enjoyable and challenging and produce a good scoring spread regardless of which group is playing it.

Obvious there's a limit to this. Perhaps it's hard to design a course (hole) suitably challenging to 1000-rated players but not oppressive to 850-rated players.

Anyway, this isn't a treatise.....just fishing for thoughts from others, from someone who plays 80% of his rounds on courses with single tees.

[drickanderson]

Out here, all of the courses have a single tee pad, and par is adjusted for skill level.

[bradharris]

I think the better way to approach designing a course with a single set of tees is to realize that the course will mean very different things to different skill levels, but can still be interesting. A hole that is a tough three for a novice player might be a fun deuce or die hole for the advanced player. You can certainly create holes that present tough risk/reward scenarios for advanced players, while novice players need to focus more on shot placement and consistency.

[Dave242]

I think that in an area that has few courses, a wide variety of holes is great as a wide variety will play the course. But, in an area with a few courses already installed, I think new courses should be made tailored to particular skill levels.

Of course, like David pointed out, all levels can enjoy any course. Many players just want to get out and throw and it does not matter to them if they are getting birdies, being challenged by the course, whatever....

Novices do not really need to have the course challenge them - their own lack of consistency is challenge enough. To try to design appropriate length/width holes tailored to them is dumb. I tend to think designing holes for Red level and below based on scoring averages and challenging/rewarding birdies etc is misplaced energy.

But, for White, Blue & Gold level they should have courses tailored to them. Of course there is wide variation in distance and accuracy ability within those categories so you need to work to vary the design around the mid point skill level of each category. You need a few holes where those with the skill of Big D are rewarded (ideal design punishes them if they fail) and some where the skill of accuracy/shot placement are rewarded (and punished if the fail).

[Dave242]

I look at Charlotte as a good example. For me as a 950-ish (Blue level) player with medium distance skills (300 accurate 360 max):

I love Kilborne (in the longs), Renny O, Hornet's Nest and Nevin as great test of my all around Game.
I love Renny Gold & Hornets Nest Web for the challenge of making par (have never gotten to 69 and only scored 70 once I think). But lots of the holes are not exciting scoring-wise as the distances on many are just out of my reach - and that leaves lots of 80-150' upshots (boring!). Those courses are Gold level courses and rightfully too much for me.
Reedy is about right in the longs (a little short maybe) and too short to be challenging fun in the shorts......but I love everything about the course as a midrange course.
I am not thrilled with Sugaw as about 1/2 of the holes are either too long or too short for me to consider rewarding....but I consider it the best tournament course for Blue level players in town.
I am not thrilled either with Elon or Elong. Elong has lots of multi-throw holes, but with short segments - it strikes me as a White level course. That is great! But for me it is not as fun one tailored to my game.

[bikinjack]

I tend to be more a fan of courses that are tailored to a particular skill level, whatever that skill level is. While we were designing Bradley Center, I pushed this concept constantly, with good results, I think. I also think that the available land can dictate what possibilities are available.

[Cgkdisc]

Dave242 - Novices do not really need to have the course challenge them - their own lack of consistency is challenge enough. To try to design appropriate length/width holes tailored to them is dumb. I tend to think designing holes for Red level and below based on scoring averages and challenging/rewarding birdies etc is misplaced energy.
While that's true for novices, the design standard for Red level is a legitimate skill level for players who never get past this level which includes a decent percentage of women and older men. Many novices just happen to play below this level and get included with the Reds. When they do score near red par on a legit red course, they know they've arrived at that level and may be ready to try for par the next level.

[DavidSauls]

Of course, like David pointed out, all levels can enjoy any course. Many players just want to get out and throw and it does not matter to them if they are getting birdies, being challenged by the course, whatever....



Well, not quite. We've got a course at Stoney Hill that suits players rated 900-1000 pretty well, but it's a bit much under 875 and not suitable for beginners and casual players at all. But I don't think you could characterize all the holes as blue or gold level, either.

Columbia's recently added some beginner-friendly, or even child-friendly, courses that really don't offer much for players over a certain modest skill level.

But a lot of my pondering this comes from Earlewood. A short course, white-level I'd guess*, but even some pretty good pros really enjoy it as a fun birdie-fest.

(* - Disclaimer that I'm guessing at the color schemes because I haven't paid real close attention to the written standards for them).

[jenb]

This musing is about course design where, for whatever reason, there are not multiple teepads on each hole for blue-level, red-level, etc. players.

I've seen discussions about a course being for a certain level, or even holes being for a certain level golfer. I'm wondering whether a course really should be targeted to a particular skill level.

I think it makes sense to target a course to a particular skill level. In my area, the community has three courses. One is a beginner course. Anopther has two sets of teepads and those are for rec and intermediate players. The third one also has two sets of tees and those are for advanced and pro.

If you are starting with only one course in your area, and it will only have one set of tees, then it makes sense to taylor it to rec skill level so that it will be able to serve the needs of the majority of players. As additional courses are added, these can be taylored to address the needs of players of other skill levels.

[Dave242]

While that's true for novices, the design standard for Red level is a legitimate skill level for players who never get past this level which includes a decent percentage of women and older men. Many novices just happen to play below this level and get included with the Reds. When they do score near red par on a legit red course, they know they've arrived at that level and may be ready to try for par the next level.

Good point. In my haste in running out the door I did miss that. I feel like a discriminator! ....and I seem to be moving quickly into one of the those 2 categories! It will indeed be nice to have some courses that cater to me when I am a little older and grayer and stiffer and weaker.

[denny ritner]

there's really no excuse for not having at least two sets of tees for every course. if the budget only allows for one set of cement or rubber, initially, put the shorter set in first and at least have 4X4 posts to mark the longer set. if there's sufficient interest, then eventually the second set will go in.

[Dave242]

Well, not quite. We've got a course at Stoney Hill that suits players rated 900-1000 pretty well, but it's a bit much under 875 and not suitable for beginners and casual players at all. But I don't think you could characterize all the holes as blue or gold level, either.

Columbia's recently added some beginner-friendly, or even child-friendly, courses that really don't offer much for players over a certain modest skill level.

But a lot of my pondering this comes from Earlewood. A short course, white-level I'd guess*, but even some pretty good pros really enjoy it as a fun birdie-fest.

You are right - I did generalize too much. I have never been to Stoney Hill (it is high on my wish list though!), and if I remember correctly it is less than ideal for shorter arms due to nasty rough in areas they would too often land in. That sort of thing and inappropriate/impossible water/lava carries do indeed make some courses unsuitable for some.

But, your comment on Earlwood is what I was trying to get at. Pro's who are really "above" the course can indeed have fun. Likewise, I can have fun on an elementary school course....but it is the same sort of fun achieved by bringing my practice basket to a football field. And I can have fun on a course that is above my head just trying to see how I match up to the world-class players

The challenge of a "how low can you go" birdiefest is fun, but it is not addicting fun....enduring fun. There is no euphoria in getting a deuce (its fully expected)....only frustration in getting pars (or worse). Ditto on courses that are too long - all the resulting doinker upshots are boring.....and scoring spread only comes from screwing up, never/rarely from playing at one's potential.

The combination of high euphoria and high frustration is what is most addicting.....and that can only be achieved by courses that match/challenge a player's skillset.

[Dave242]

there's really no excuse for not having at least two sets of tees for every course. if the budget only allows for one set of cement or rubber, initially, put the shorter set in first and at least have 4X4 posts to mark the longer set. if there's sufficient interest, then eventually the second set will go in.

In my travels I pay attention to the erosion pattern around tees. I seldom encounter scenarios with equal wear patterns on courses where multiple tees are offered (often/usually one set of tees seems completely ignored). That is my excuse (not that I have put in many courses....and the one I am planning will have Blue & Red tees on most holes).

[DavidSauls]

there's really no excuse for not having at least two sets of tees for every course. if the budget only allows for one set of cement or rubber, initially, put the shorter set in first and at least have 4X4 posts to mark the longer set. if there's sufficient interest, then eventually the second set will go in.

Multiple tees are of course preferable, which is why I qualified the opening post, but there are some decent excuses for not having them. I can think of some pretty short courses, where's there's no room for longer tees but no need for shorter ones. I know of some very hilly courses where teepad installation---even just markers---is a LOT of effort, because it involves significant earth-moving to create level tee areas. Finally, I know a private course owner who doesn't particularly want extra tees and doesn't want to do the work to create them, when maintaining the course takes a lot of work already.

[Cgkdisc]

A trend I'm noticing and have gotten swept into is installing two baskets on every hole but just having one tee. The baskets would be at two different skill levels. Two projects in IL & IN are going this way because a second basket is cheaper than a second tee in their market area when they contract the tee pad work. Their contractors charge around $500 to do a complete pad including all the prep work and labor. Then add the cost of another tee sign and optional bench. Good baskets delivered are under $450 each and still only one tee sign needed.

[jenb]

A trend I'm noticing and have gotten swept into is installing two baskets on every hole but just having one tee. The baskets would be at two different skill levels. Two projects in IL & IN are going this way because a second basket is cheaper than a second tee in their market area when they contract the tee pad work. Their contractors charge around $500 to do a complete pad including all the prep work and labor. Then add the cost of another tee sign and optional bench. Good baskets delivered are under $450 each and still only one tee sign needed.

I liek the idea of using all the pin positions simultaneously. Even if there are multiple teepads, I still think it is a good idea.

[Steve West]

A trend I'm noticing and have gotten swept into is installing two baskets on every hole but just having one tee. The baskets would be at two different skill levels.

I don't like this. For one, it seems more demeaning to tell a player "You can't even shoot for the same thing as REAL players" than to say, "Here's a little advantage so you have about the same chance, and can get the feel of what it will be like when you get better".

Also, the most confusing thing to put on any course is something that looks almost like the real thing. A false fairway that goes nowhere, a beaten down path that does not lead to the next tee, a random basket that you are not supposed to shoot at...

For safety, keep in mind that you can design for a certain skill level, but you can't control who will play those tees. I've seen big-arm pros playing competitively at Wabun (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2698), and two-disc beginners play the Gold tees at Fort Snelling (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=4529). You can't count on the short-tee players to throw short, and you can't count on the long-tee player to "know better".

[Cgkdisc]

Other than the cost angle, another place I've seen the two basket approach used is on (ski) hilly courses where doing two tees in certain locations is much more challenging. There may be one good, relatively flat area for building tee on a hole where having a red and blue level basket was an easier solution than a second tee. Some of these courses mix it up with every hole either having two skill appropriate tees or two skill appropriate baskets so both skill sets are served on each hole one way or the other.

[denny ritner]

I prefer multiple tees to multiple baskets. I do not like when the concept doesn't carry through, without some very good signage. Multiple basket courses need a good main course sign that explains the concept, color indications, designed skill levels, etc.

One of my favorite courses to play was maddening the first time through due to incomplete/confusing signage. The tee signs indicated three basket locations, but most holes had two and some only one. There was no main course sign and both tees on hole 1 were difficult to locate. Most holes had two tees, but some only one and there wasn't a sign to indicate this. The course in mind could be a 5, but I gave it a 4 for these reasons. A player should be able to go to a course, read the main course sign and be able to select the appropriate tees for them and navigate the course without a guide.

[BionicRib]

I am for courses with multiple tees. IMO I really like very challenging courses...not just for myself, but I have a belief that the more challenging the courses as a whole get, the more respect the sport will get.....

Multiple tees over multiple baskets IMO.....but if you can have multiple tees and multiple baskets that is the best. (Renny, Hornets Nest, Lemon Lake Silver and Gold).......having both gives you so many options to play and if it is done right it should appeal to all skill levels.

[Dave242]

Multiple tees over multiple baskets IMO.....but if you can have multiple tees and multiple baskets that is the best. (Renny, Hornets Nest, Lemon Lake Silver and Gold).......having both gives you so many options to play and if it is done right it should appeal to all skill levels.

I am sure there are some low level players who enjoy playing these courses, but the multiple tees and baskets at these courses (LL does not have multiple baskets last I checked 15 months ago) do not seem to make any of them too friendly to anyone below say a White level. Long, tight, thick rough, rugged terrain.

[mashnut]

LL red has several permanent dual baskets, some of which offer some much easier shots. Te silver/gold layout has dual permanent baskets on a number of holes as well, the shortest layout there is still a gold challenge for intermediate players and not that beginner friendly but it's nowhere near the challenge of the gold to gold layout.

[Cgkdisc]

The fifth course being developed at LL is being planned with one tee and two baskets on each hole (white & gold levels) when I walked the rough layout with Brian in October.

[weeman]

The fifth course being developed at LL is being planned with one tee and two baskets on each hole (white & gold levels) when I walked the rough layout with Brian in October.

So its not tye-dye?

On the subject of courses-per-skill-level, and this is all my opinion, shouldn't really be an issue. If anyone from a Novice to an Open player can go out there and have fun then I see the course as being a success. The broad array of skilled players can pick and choose their own aspects to focus on without being forced into it by a certain course design.

The only courses I believe that should be developed for a certain skill set are ones on school grounds, especially elementary schools. Here the courses should be geared to growing the sport and getting kids to enjoy the simpler part of the sport. Inherently, this means shorter holes that provide a challenge that younger less experienced players can manage.

[DerekTonn]

A few thoughts I have on the topic:

1. Why the heck don't more courses/designers incorporate red, white, blue, and gold in their tee/signage designs? What better way to make the colors used for standards by designers mean something to your average player? And what better way to avoid a ton of confusion for players looking for their next tee? Tell beginners "play the reds," and if they stumble on to a white/blue/gold tee, they know they're in the wrong place (unless one tee serves multiple levels of play).

2. Why don't more designers resist the urge to get everything permanent in the ground (tee pads, signage, etc.) until the course has had a few years to breathe? And with that in mind, rather than using theory to base final design decisions, why not incorporate live player data? That's what I do on my home course, using DGCR (and other) per-hole stats for the different holes/tees to determine where scores are seemingly much too high or too low for various levels of play. Caused me to re-design 4-5 holes on our course to add/ease challenge, as well as add new tees (where they previously were shared amongst all players).

With our course, we just set par on every hole at 3. 900-930 rated players can consistently shoot around -5 or -6 off the shorts (reds) if they stick their putts, with -3 of -4 almost being "par." Put them on the whites, and E to -2 is a common score. We don't have blues or golds, but we've had Advanced players not be able to get much past -4 or -5 off the whites. But holes have been substantially redesigned using years of data from actual rounds played/recorded.

My only disappointment with that is that we can't seem to attract Advanced/Open players to even visit our area...so the data for our red/white tees are HEAVILY skewed to red/white ability. But since the nearest Open level player to our course probably lives over an hour away, I guess that's okay.

[bwiese]

A few thoughts I have on the topic:

1. Why the heck don't more courses/designers incorporate red, white, blue, and gold in their tee/signage designs? What better way to make the colors used for standards by designers mean something to your average player? And what better way to avoid a ton of confusion for players looking for their next tee? Tell beginners "play the reds," and if they stumble on to a white/blue/gold tee, they know they're in the wrong place (unless one tee serves multiple levels of play)..

I think the 4 color to level design is a good idea, but every piece of property is different. In some circumustances your gold level t's would be a par 2 because of lack of room or lack of challange. Other times all the different tees would have to be crammed in or not enough different to make it worth it. Where you have to back up the gold/blue tees too might make them unsafe in regards to other holes around.

2. Why don't more designers resist the urge to get everything permanent in the ground (tee pads, signage, etc.) until the course has had a few years to breathe? And with that in mind, rather than using theory to base final design decisions, why not incorporate live player data? That's what I do on my home course, using DGCR (and other) per-hole stats for the different holes/tees to determine where scores are seemingly much too high or too low for various levels of play. Caused me to re-design 4-5 holes on our course to add/ease challenge, as well as add new tees (where they previously were shared amongst all players)..

Waiting is a great idea and can allow you to work the kinks out of a course and fix problems you may not have forseen. However people are impatient and parks want to see something for their investment. If they are forking over thousands of dollars they want something useable. A course with no signage would be useless to people who dont play disc golf alot. As far as the live player data most people just dont care that much. You could guess pretty easily what range people are going to score for a specific level.

My only disappointment with that is that we can't seem to attract Advanced/Open players to even visit our area...so the data for our red/white tees are HEAVILY skewed to red/white ability. But since the nearest Open level player to our course probably lives over an hour away, I guess that's okay.

You could look at this problem as a blessing. Because you live in Minn. you have as many dg courses as you do lakes. While your home course may not draw the bigger names you probably have a crapton of great courses with in an hour driving that you get to play. A few years ago you there was only 1 course within an hour drive here.

[Cgkdisc]

A less expensive way to provide tees for more skill levels is to double up colors on some tees. For example, let's say you design two sets of tees with either the common combo of Red and Blue or the less common White and Gold. There's good chance you can identify either the red or blue tee on each hole as best for white level. The white course would become a mix of red and blue tees with white par added to the appropriate tee sign.

With White and Gold tees, you might be able to figure which tee is best for Blue and even Red. It might be a really tough red course. But as long as the red par is set properly (typically one more than the gold par), players can have a challenge relative to their skill set unless some holes have carries over water such that adding one to the par still doesn't mean a beginner can throw over it.

[bwiese]

will some random dad with 3 children and 4 discs he just bought from dicks sporting goods know what red, white, blue or gold is? I dont think there is a huge problem with only having 1 set of permanent tees and natural for the second The course designer should look at the use of the park, look at the property and design a course with 1 or two specific skill levels in mind. There are some great pitch and putt courses that gold tees would make no sense for. There are other courses that are perfect for blue/gold level players and having red tees would make those players have to walk half way or more down a fairway to get to their tbox. Most rec players at a course like that would probably want to play from the "big boy tees" to see how they can do and not spend most of their day walking instead of throwing.

[Cgkdisc]

They will know as much about red, white and blue skill levels as they know about the discs they just bought and what hyzer and understable mean. It doesn't mean the discs nor courses shouldn't be designed with those characteristics in mind.

[Sadjo]

When we did a redesign of Chattooga Belle Farm this past spring, we added a second tee to all but 3 holes. Two holes had a third set of tees added. The tees are red, blue and gold. In some cases the Red and Blue share a tee and on other holes the Blue and Gold share a tee.

We held a tournament in July that all players in all divisions played blue in the morning and only pros played the gold course in the afternoon and all other divisions played the reds.

The course is very long...to walk let along play...covering 138 acres in 18 holes.

[Sadjo]

This musing is about course design where, for whatever reason, there are not multiple teepads on each hole for blue-level, red-level, etc. players.

I've seen discussions about a course being for a certain level, or even holes being for a certain level golfer. I'm wondering whether a course really should be targeted to a particular skill level.

After all, players spanning a range of abilities are sure to play it.

It's tough to be all things for all people, of course, but it seems if a course has a variety of gold-level, blue-level, maybe even white-level holes, it'll be preferable overall than one that has, say, all blue-level holes.

It also seems that many well-designed holes are perfectly suitable across a range of play. One might average 3.7 for gold players and 4.3 for blue (or whatever), but can be enjoyable and challenging and produce a good scoring spread regardless of which group is playing it.

Obvious there's a limit to this. Perhaps it's hard to design a course (hole) suitably challenging to 1000-rated players but not oppressive to 850-rated players.

Anyway, this isn't a treatise.....just fishing for thoughts from others, from someone who plays 80% of his rounds on courses with single tees.

Going back to the OP question.

There's a lot of things to consider when designing a course...everything from the lay of the land to who owns the land and what is the goal of that particular course.

I'm in the process of designing 3 courses right now. One is going to be the first course in a small Georgia community. The plans are for it to be a beginner friendly course. It will be 9-Holes with dual tees. Having to sets of tees will be more for variety than an effort to have a Red and a Blue course but it will play that way.

The second course is a 9-hole course in a South Carolina county that already has four 18 holes courses and another 9 hole course. This community also has a few other projects in the development stage. This property is an older park that was once an adopted Boy Scout project. We're planning duel tees with multiple pin placements. With so many other choices close by we're designing this course to have a big variety of unique holes for the long tees but keeping it beginner friend with the short tees being particularly friendly to beginners and kids.

The third course is the big project. Thirty-five + acres of land with lots of elevation and the park department has requested multiple tees and pin locations on every hole. They want a course that will be friendly to rec level players while offering a unique and challenging course to the golf level player. Our plans are to get a basic layout using topographical maps with aerial views. We're using a GPS to mark old logging trails, old hiking trails and an area that is more open. After we get everything marked, we plan on laying out several potential holes and then we want to bring in a more experienced designer to consult with us on the course.

Anyway...each project brings to the table something very different so you have to take each project as it comes.

[bwiese]

They will know as much about red, white and blue skill levels as they know about the discs they just bought and what hyzer and understable mean. It doesn't mean the discs nor courses shouldn't be designed with those characteristics in mind.

Courses should be designed with a certain level in mind. That is my point. Most parks it isnt necessary to have 4 tee pads on every hole. Depending what the land is like and what courses are already available should dictate what level it should be designed for. We have a set of red tees at a course and they are never used. The course is a par 62 blue level course and rec people dont go there to play much and if they do they play from the tee box with the tee sign next to it and not the reds. People will probably say every tee box should have a sign, but that is one more expense parks and rec were not willing to fork over.

[Cgkdisc]

I believe my post indicated you rarely need four tees per hole and two can be enough to cover up to four skill levels if done properly. If you do have dual tees, they both should ideally have similar quality (i.e. tee signs, teeing surface) with the shorter ones being the better quality if there's a difference.

[bwiese]

All the courses with dual tees didnt follow your advice. One around here has natural tees marked with a toe board as the longer, while another has the shorter being natural. Neither has a t-sign on both.

[Cgkdisc]

That's why we have these discussions so people can take the ideas back to their own course managers and hopefully improve them where possible.

[bwiese]

I think we are arguing the same point.

In this economic time there is no way the parks and rec around here are going to spend more money on something that is not bringing them revenue.

All upgrades and improvements come from a small club.

[DerekTonn]

Courses should be designed with a certain level in mind. That is my point. Most parks it isnt necessary to have 4 tee pads on every hole. Depending what the land is like and what courses are already available should dictate what level it should be designed for. We have a set of red tees at a course and they are never used. The course is a par 62 blue level course and rec people dont go there to play much and if they do they play from the tee box with the tee sign next to it and not the reds. People will probably say every tee box should have a sign, but that is one more expense parks and rec were not willing to fork over.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that you need four tees for each hole. On four of our holes, "reds" and "whites" are the same tee (we have no blues or golds...people looking for the hardest challenge our course has to offer will need to play the whites). The tee signs, however, reflect that. Literally half-red, half-white. So telling people "play the reds" or "play the whites" still works.

Also, your average dad with a couple kids and their dog tagging along won't know what the colors mean. Nor should they be expected to! But isn't signage a golden opportunity to do a bit of education? Why not introduce those color designations to the signs? And if more courses adopted that practice, beginners could go to courses all over the place and know to stick to reds on other courses too.

[denny ritner]

I believe my post indicated you rarely need four tees per hole and two can be enough to cover up to four skill levels if done properly. If you do have dual tees, they both should ideally have similar quality (i.e. tee signs, teeing surface) with the shorter ones being the better quality if there's a difference.

I agree with this. I'd just add that the color coding system should be explained on the main course sign and the tees should be clearly marked with each of the color levels offered available on EVERY hole.

There's a good course in town here with two sets of tees (red and blue) on every hole and a sprinkling of greens and golds thrown in on a few holes. The few gold tees never get used; i'm not sure about the greens. The main course sign doesn't mention anything about what the colors mean.

[DerekTonn]

Waiting is a great idea and can allow you to work the kinks out of a course and fix problems you may not have forseen. However people are impatient and parks want to see something for their investment. If they are forking over thousands of dollars they want something useable. A course with no signage would be useless to people who dont play disc golf alot. As far as the live player data most people just dont care that much. You could guess pretty easily what range people are going to score for a specific level.

I agree with this comment (above). However, what's the problem with using wooden stakes and laminated paper signs for a year or two? Might have to swap them out a couple times (weather, vandalism, etc.), but that's a whole lot cheaper and less time-consuming than trying to move tees or re-print professionally-printed signs (as my course has been going through...as we were one of those communities that wanted everything usable NOW, only to learn from our mistakes after seeing how the design needed to change after a few years).

Sounds like I'm drifting off the original topic (sorry). However, part of designing for a particular skill level is actually figuring out how best to design for a particular skill level! Parachuting in, walking some land a couple times, trimming a few branches, and pouring concrete bases for your baskets won't maximize a design's potential. No matter how good the designer (IMHO). And for everyone who can't hire awesome guys like Chuck Kennedy or Steve West to help them out, I think not going "permanent" with tee pads and signage until after the course has a few hundred/thousand rounds under its belt is incredibly important.

[Dave242]

I am not against tweaking designs to improve them after they are installed to make them better, but I have grave concerns with anyone who endeavors to design a course who does not have the mental wherewithal to plan properly so that only minor tweaks are needed. So Derek; I disagree with you.

Anyone attempting to design a course should have a firm grasp on how discs fly....and how they fly for the intended level of player. They need to know how to make fairways the right width and length to be be fair, and how to shape the fairways in an intended flight path that can be accomplished over 2/3's of the time with a given throw by the intended skill level, and they need to think through how they will mix up the types of flight-lines required to make it a fun/interesting and appropriately challenging course. They should be able to figure out legitimate fairway conflicts with other fairways and other park activities by the worst of throwers.....and design around that. And erosion, drainage, etc concerns.

If they cannot figure this stuff out before they plant baskets and pour tee pads they have no business designing a course. And, if they cannot figure this out up front, I have little hope that they will be able to make sense of anything after the fact and fix it properly to actually make it better.

IMO, the tweaks after the fact should be trimming trees and shrubs or taking them down. It is much easier to take a tree or branch down than put one back up! Plus weather and nature will take down trees for you, so the course will most likely get easier over time and not harder.

[Cgkdisc]

The best laid plans of the best designers are still waylaid sometimes by the Park Dept or course owner after the initial design is cut out or installed because they couldn't see what the designer saw and either change their minds or unexpected complaints or plans for other activities in the park occur after the course goes in. I've had to redesign The (North) Valley 8 times over the past 20 years with only one of the redesigns initiated by me. The other 7 were triggered by the Park Dept for a variety of reasons.

[DerekTonn]

I am not against tweaking designs to improve them after they are installed to make them better, but I have grave concerns with anyone who endeavors to design a course who does not have the mental wherewithal to plan properly so that only minor tweaks are needed. So Derek; I disagree with you.

Anyone attempting to design a course should have a firm grasp on how discs fly....and how they fly for the intended level of player. They need to know how to make fairways the right width and length to be be fair, and how to shape the fairways in an intended flight path that can be accomplished over 2/3's of the time with a given throw by the intended skill level, and they need to think through how they will mix up the types of flight-lines required to make it a fun/interesting and appropriately challenging course. They should be able to figure out legitimate fairway conflicts with other fairways and other park activities by the worst of throwers.....and design around that. And erosion, drainage, etc concerns.

If they cannot figure this stuff out before they plant baskets and pour tee pads they have no business designing a course. And, if they cannot figure this out up front, I have little hope that they will be able to make sense of anything after the fact and fix it properly to actually make it better.

IMO, the tweaks after the fact should be trimming trees and shrubs or taking them down. It is much easier to take a tree or branch down than put one back up! Plus weather and nature will take down trees for you, so the course will most likely get easier over time and not harder.

In an ideal world, I absolutely, 100% agree with you, Dave! However, unless it's basically a seasoned, LOCAL expert/designer who is doing the work and then babysitting the course afterwards, good luck at ever achieving the ideal. Heck, as Chuck just mentioned, good luck even if you have that too! :)

That's the thing. How many times do designers choose the shortest path to discs flying vs. the path that will result in the very best course possible on a piece of land, only after literally years of hard work? The phenomenal holes out there which will never be played, because it would take a course designer too much time for what they are being paid (per-hour ROI)? Or use-up a community's entire course budget just prepping that one hole?

I see that type of thing all the time. I don't blame pro designers either...as they've gotta make at least some money for their efforts! And they feel enormous pressure to get discs flying soon after their project has been green-lighted. I just know that to truly achieve the kinds of holes that are possible, you've got years of hard work ahead of you. Either that, or a price tag for labor and equipment that 99.99% of communities cannot afford.

After we opened, I spent an entire Summer, about 200-250+ volunteer hours, clearing what is now Pro 10 on our course. Another entire Summer clearing what is now Pro 4, which involved the need to relocate Hole 3 to a better location (which was never done initially, since nobody was stupid enough to burn an entire Summer doing Hole 4 right, ha!). One entire Summer and about 1/3 of the next Summer opening up what is now Hole 14. And this past Summer working on what will become our course's signature hole, Hole 11.

I'm talking a couple hours an afternoon, 4-5 afternoons a week (rain or shine), every week, for an entire Summer. Just to get ONE HOLE'S white tee and fairway ready for discs to fly! It's insanity, and only a fool or someone deeply in love with the sport/property/community would do it.

I get what you're saying. A good/great designer will see what needs to be done without a lot of re-dos later. All I'm saying is that most good/great designers aren't willing/able to burn 200-250 hours working on one fairway...let alone an entire course. Nor do they have a fleet of city/county workers and volunteers to help them with plantings, trimmings, flood/erosion control, weed pulling, et al. Their good/great design is ultimately a compromise. Weighing the amount of time/effort needed to achieve "okay" vs. "good" vs. "great."

[denny ritner]

I stand with what Dave242 said.

[Dave242]

I stand with what Dave242 said.

I was half suspecting that some FL folks would disagree with this part since I imagine in many places things grow up much much faster than they come down.
Plus weather and nature will take down trees for you, so the course will most likely get easier over time and not harder.

[DerekTonn]

Originally Posted by Dave242
Plus weather and nature will take down trees for you, so the course will most likely get easier over time and not harder.

I was going to comment on this too, as we've had 1-2 beavers trying to impersonate lumberjacks on a couple of our holes this Fall (ha). But I guess my general experience has been the opposite. Dozens of maple and walnut trees we planted that were between 3 and 8 feet tall when we opened are now 12-15+ feet tall. And shots that were once wide-open off the tee are finally beginning to start acting more like they were designed to...forcing you to take 1-2 particular attack angles at the basket off the tee, versus any angle or flight path you wanted to.

Trust me though, I'm not here to say "up is down" or "black is white." :) I 90% agree with most-everything you've posted, Dave! It's just that almost every course I play seems as though designers (or at least property owners approving design ideas) are afraid/reluctant to push into heavily wooded areas, as it'll increase the amount of prep time for discs to be flying by a factor of ten. Even though those areas can offer incredible challenge, narrow/interesting fairways, terrain/elevation changes, and more reason for "blues" and "golds" to bother making the drive.

So is a "great design" one that makes the very-best of what folks can do to get discs flying in wide-open, already-mowed areas? Or is a "great design" one that creates some far more interesting, beautiful, challenging holes which get players further away from other park/land uses and users...even if it might mean years of work until the entire course design is 100% playable? Rhetorical question, but an important one to think about, IMHO.

[denny ritner]

Or is a "great design" one that creates some far more interesting, beautiful, challenging holes which get players further away from other park/land uses and users...even if it might mean years of work until the entire course design is 100% playable? Rhetorical question, but an important one to think about, IMHO.

This ^^

We've got about 1000 hours into this project (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1853) (about 1/2 me and 1/2 others). There were times when I felt that every time I left the course after a work weekend the to-do list was longer than when I got there, but it has finally gotten to the point it feels "done". Of course, there's always more, but now every time I get to the course it feels better than I'd remembered and every time I leave it feels that the to-do list is shorter.

The entire course was cut out of dense, virgin woods. The upside being that I got to shape all the fairways EXACTLY the way that I wanted them. The downside being the ton of work that waaay exceeded my initial estimates. It's been a marathon, but ultimately immensely satisfying.

My hope is that designers everywhere will take full advantage of the opportunities that they've been given and develop properties to their full potential, including designing for multiple skill levels.

[DerekTonn]

Looks awesome, Denny! That's my kind of course. Trees, trees, and more trees. Tight fairways, with precise flight paths needed to have any hope of making deuce (or even par). If I ever get down that way, it'll definitely be on my list to play.

I easily believe you've got 1,000+ hours into the project too! I'm probably about 800-900 hours into our course here. Not as heavily wooded as yours, but where there aren't trees, there's been chest-high itch weeds to beat back into submission, or areas I've raised 2-3 feet in elevation to help with flood/erosion control. Hundreds of yards of black dirt, gravel and rock. :)

[Sadjo]

Today I'm working with another player on a new 9-Hole course...I'm bring my three sons with me for their first ever work day (other than trash pick up) on the course. So far with walk throughs and design along with clearing I've got over 40 in in the last 6 weeks on this course. I understand the dedication.

Each project requires a different set of standards to get to where it needs to be...this nine hole has a chance to be something special...so it will get more time than some of my better known courses I've worked on.

[Dave242]

Sadjo, what are the courses you've designed?

[Sadjo]

Sadjo, what are the courses you've designed?

I only have a few I was the lead designer on. Recent courses include Chattooga Belle Farm, Shaver's Long pin layout and the new 9 at Shaver. I have been involved in 12 new courses or upgrades to exsisting courses since 2008...including River Chase, one of the longest courses in the world at 13,000 feet from tee to pins from the blue tees.

Most I've my involvement is selling courses and Disc Golf to private businesses, individuals, cities and park departments. I pitch Disc Golf to groups a half dozen to a dozen times a year. Right now I have three courses that have been approved and paid for and are all in the design phase. I'm involved in all three for the design but only taking lead on 1...even though I'm the contact for the city/park department where the courses are going in the ground.

You won't see my name as designer or codesigner on many courses but my involvement in getting these courses approved and funded is where most of my work is done.

[tom12003]

Back to the thread definition of designing to skill level. About 7 yrs ago I politicked to get DG into a Master Plan of a new park in a densely populated area in Virginia just outside of Wahington DC ($250K/acre). Our pitch was a world class championship level course that was also amenable to the beginners--result is that we got 2 tees and 2 permenate baskets for each hole--Giles Run Meadow. Short tees to short baskets are about 4000'; short tees to long baskets or long tees to short baskets are about 6000' (long tees slightly harder); long tees to long baskets are about 8000'. Seems to cover most skill levels.

Last year, I moved to Charlotte and have helped install 2+ courses for the 2012 Worlds (RL Smith and Winget). Both were designed for an anticipated skill level for the Worlds; both were also designed and installed (both heavily wooded) for future expansion by lengthening tees or pins. Charlotte has so many great courses there is not a big need to build a lot of alternative skill level courses (my biggest problem is deciding which of the 15+ courses to play or which one to work on:)).

[Cgkdisc]

Just a reminder to continue building DG courses to serve multiple skill levels. Here's a paragraph from the USGA yearend wrap letter to members:

"In partnership with The PGA of America, we piloted TEE IT FORWARD, a new approach to the game that encourages golfers to play from tees that match their driving distance. To date, more than 1,900 facilities and 237,000 golfers are “teeing it forward” and having more fun. In 2012, we plan to make this a year-round promotion in an effort to increase overall participation and enjoyment of the game."

[duckychucky]

My course has 4 tees on each hole. Most holes have two different routes or fairways to the green. The red tees are short versions of the blue tee (wide fairways) and the whites are short versions of the gold (narrow fairways). Because we get alot of newbie campers playing and to encourage playing the proper tees (tee it forward) we have this sign:

Tee Level Descriptions
Red Tees- Recreational Level, players with 100+ ft drives and accurate 15 ft putts.
White Tees- Amateur Level, players with 200+ ft drives and accurate 20 ft putts.
Blue tees- Advanced Level, players with 300+ ft drives and accurate 25 ft putts.
Gold tees- Professional Level, players with 350+ ft drives and accurate 30 ft putts.
*“Green Tees”- Junior Level, players with <100 ft drives and accurate putts <15 ft. For ages 12 & under, senior citizens and handicap players. Green level players play from red and white tees adding one stroke to par.



This may not be the exact PDGA definitions of levels but it is simple enough for newbies to understand and is effective at scaring noobs from trying the harder tees even though they walk past them. This also works well because the course has great flow with VERY short walks from the baskets to the next long tees, so walking the extra 25-100 ft to the short tees is no big deal. If there were long walks between holes i can see noobs just throwing from the first tee they get to.

[denny ritner]

Tee Level Descriptions
Red Tees- Recreational Level, players with 100+ ft drives and accurate 15 ft putts.
White Tees- Amateur Level, players with 200+ ft drives and accurate 20 ft putts.
Blue tees- Advanced Level, players with 300+ ft drives and accurate 25 ft putts.
Gold tees- Professional Level, players with 350+ ft drives and accurate 30 ft putts.
*“Green Tees”- Junior Level, players with <100 ft drives and accurate putts <15 ft. For ages 12 & under, senior citizens and handicap players. Green level players play from red and white tees adding one stroke to par.

I like your descriptions and the fact that you have a sign with this information up front. Many, many courses need to follow this example. I've used the statement on my scorecards "The Blue Tees have been created for Expert Level players and are quite challenging. It is recommended that Beginner and Intermediate level players play from the Red Tees for a more enjoyable round." A little information goes a long way.

Also, I've posted this before, but thought it deserved a re-post. It's tough for many players to walk past the long tees without throwing from them. When possible it's best, imo, to make the easiest, most intuitive walk from one hole to the next take players to the shortest tee, such as seen here:

http://waydowndisc.com/Tee%20Example.jpg

[Karl]

While I understand the concept here and that a "diagram" isn't to scale / may not truly represent reality, the "traditional" course IS safer (a consideration that must be taken) as there is virtually no chance of a shot at the previous hole hitting the next tee box - not something that can be said about the beginner friendly course.

If wooded: 4 red people get killed by 5 blue tee shots as they cross over to 5 red tee, etc.
If open: 1 shots get 2 blue tee, etc.

As long as such things are thought about prior to final design (to alleviate such) all will be OK.

Karl

[denny ritner]

"diagram" isn't to scale

of course safety trumps.

[duckychucky]

Denny, i like your diagram alot. Disc golf is new to our area and I am taking the "tee it forward" concept seriously, because I dont want noobs to walk out and try the gold tees for their first ever round carding a +5 on most holes.
Your diagram inspired me make a "Beginner friendly for 4 tees" diagram (which is what i strived for on my course). First time posting a pic to forum, hope it works...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chasmrecman/6731196759/

[denny ritner]

Denny, i like your diagram alot. Disc golf is new to our area and I am taking the "tee it forward" concept seriously, because I dont want noobs to walk out and try the gold tees for their first ever round carding a +5 on most holes.
Your diagram inspired me make a "Beginner friendly for 4 tees" diagram (which is what i strived for on my course). First time posting a pic to forum, hope it works...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chasmrecman/6731196759/

i like it, great to see you designing for multiple, specific skill levels. just remember, as karl pointed out, that safety is #1.

[optidiscic]

clusters of multiple tee pads in a municipal town park are atrocious to look at...eyesore actually

If a course has the space to build a gold level course you could always use an area of that land to build a warm-up beginner course...9 fun little holes ace runs for experts and a fun intro for beginners.
I think multiple tees often cause a course to play too easy (multiple fairways open up too many alternate routes (cheater routes) and actually can diminish the integrity of the main course

Sometimes a course with 1 tee and 1 basket is the best and most logical use of space

[denny ritner]

Sometimes a course with 1 tee and 1 basket is the best and most logical use of space

sometimes

[duckychucky]

Opti- You may be right about multiple tees in a town park, but my course is a private campground (with almost unlimited land for DG) that sees lots of noobie campers as well as local season pass holders and disc golf vacationers so I wanted our 1st course to properly challenge every level. The diagram is not the actual layout, just an example to go with dennys.
The course we have now has 4 tees but is designed as our "White Level Course", a challenging par 3 for all levels. Avg hole length 200-400ft.

This spring we are adding the next 9, an easy par 3 "Red Level Course" with 2 tees, red and white (blue/gold play as par 2). Avg hole length 125-250 ft.

Then in the fall the next 9 will open as the "Blue Level Course" with 2 tees, blue and gold (red/white players add one stroke to par). Avg hole length 300-600 ft.

The following year all 3 courses will be expanded to 18 each...I hope...

[optidiscic]

Sounds great. Slap a hotel up and I will be there for sure.