Courses getting longer and longer

[chainmonkey]

One reason I like DG is that I can play a round in a lot less time(less that half) than I use to play ball golf. Now the new courses are getting longer with multiple par 4's and 5's. I was looking at a design earlier that is a par 71. How is this going to effect the time it takes to play a round? Are DG'ers ready for 3 hour rounds?

[cblack129]

i like the idea of longer holes with par 4s and 5s. Gives you alot more variety and different shots.

[billnchristy]

Personally I don't like them. A 600'-800' hole every now and then and whatnot is fine, but why would I want that every hole?

On top of that if we start demanding 50-100 acres parks are gonna tell us where to put our disc golf courses.

[skamasterhenrik]

I think that DG needs a mix, as we're headed for. Right now the majority of courses are par 54-low 60's. Championship caliber courses (anything above 65 in my mind) have a place in DG and I for one would like to see more of them. The best case scenario is a plot of land that has both courses on one, with either two tees and two pins, two tees one pin, one tee two pins, etc. This is the Charlotte area's bread and butter, and the area's two new courses are going to be championship caliber.

[discgolfne1]

I have never seen the point of holes longer than 500 ft. 900 ft wide open holes are a mystery also. It just give the big arms an advantage. A few long holes are fine, but they should have SOME obstacles. IMO just caause it's long .. don't make it a great hole. I know the land you have to work with dictates the holes to some degree.

If you want a championship type course you might have long holes (but they need obstacles)

I seen courses (Green County in Charlottsville Va. comes to mind) start as a "dink course" only to end with 500ft+ holes.

[Technohic]

If you dont like long open holes, dont go to Deis Hill in Ohio. Actaulyl it was a great course but I didnt rank it as high as Arboretum-Spiker which also has some long holes but has a lot more variety. I think I actually prefer more technical course because I only throw 300' but on the same token, thats not fair to the guys whos big arms are their strength.

I think there is a place for both kinds but to be a great course, I want a good mix of some open holes and some tunnel shots, with elevation changes and reasonable water hazaards (Dont care for the "drive 300' or splash ones")

Big thing is, like Bill said, we gotta be carefull not to ask for too much from parks as far as space.

[billnchristy]

I personally think the true championship caliber courses would be lame. Why? Because they would be designed to handle crowds, and by that they would be open. It would end up like Winthrop with a bunch of fake obstacles and borders to make it hard.

Now, if we want to make really really hard courses I think those should be put in on private land and all be pay to play. That way they can be taken care of professionally.

The sport NEEDS rec courses to get people playing and it NEEDS pro courses so us suckos can go get humbled and somewhere to watch the pros do their thing.

It seems like Maple Hill in the Vibram layout is quite the champ course, but it would never be an ESPN Presents the March to the PDGA Shick Redbull Depends Monastat Cup caliber course because there is nowhere to put the big gallery. As we all know, big gallery=success (this is kind of sarcastic).

Really what needs to grow are Junior level courses. They may be lame to us but if we want our kids to play we should probably not expect them to throw 666' par 4s.

[PanicKJ]

I think long holes are great. In NC the majority of the courses I play are in the woods with tight fairways. I think Disc golf could use more courses where you can actually use that driver that you spent so much time in the field throwing.

Winthrop is a blast to play. It will kick you around even without the ropes set up.

I would even like to see pay courses, however with so many free courses around I don't see pay course succeeding. Not to the extent of ball courses. Now if ball courses were to add another green with a disc golf basket I think they could make some extra money however I don't see a full blown disc golf course being successful. Private courses with small fees excluded.

[chalos13]

If you've played north lake park in Denton it's like this. 2 holes over 500, lots of par 4s, but a lot of open, long shots. I really enjoyed it though. I feel like to grow my game i need to be able to crank a drive and not be totally punished if it fades way right. That helps me practice my power. By the end of the round I was driving farther than I normally do and putting it right in the middle of the fairway. I think just like I need obstacles to get around to teach me technique and accuracy, I need some bomb holes so I can work on distance. Also, it's just plain fun to throw a disc as far and as hard as you can and not worry about losing it 100ft off in the woods. I wish I was closer to this course.

[Technohic]

If you've played north lake park in Denton it's like this. 2 holes over 500, lots of par 4s, but a lot of open, long shots. I really enjoyed it though. I feel like to grow my game i need to be able to crank a drive and not be totally punished if it fades way right. That helps me practice my power. By the end of the round I was driving farther than I normally do and putting it right in the middle of the fairway. I think just like I need obstacles to get around to teach me technique and accuracy, I need some bomb holes so I can work on distance. Also, it's just plain fun to throw a disc as far and as hard as you can and not worry about losing it 100ft off in the woods. I wish I was closer to this course.

You do have a good point. I find some of the open holes boring but yet, I have been willing to go just work on driving in a field. Maybe I was thinking of the open holes the wrong way.

Either way, i still find it more fun to at least have a tree or something in the way.

[toothyfish]

Don't underrate open holes! They can be challenging in a bit of wind...
Also, some of the ones I've played, if I get the drive just right, I have a longish butt putt for birdie. But if I pull the drive, or nose it up a touch, I'm approaching and settling for a short putt. OR those par 4's that take two well thrown drives for birdie. Feels GREAT to birdie a 650 ft hole!

There are a couple courses I've played that would be considered open, but by use of a few trees by the basket, or in the fairway add some challenge. One in particular was a 400ft hole, with a thick grown-in tree line at 360, with a 10 ft opening. Best play for me was driving to 320 and being sure I was lined up through the opening and lay an approach at the basket. A max drive that is left or right had NO WAY through and you were probably looking at bogey. I know, I did it!

[wolito]

Definately not a big fan of long holes. I am a techincal type player, the more wooded the better I am. I dislike holes that are long just for the sake of being long. 500 feet or so is alright, but most of the longer holes are just that, long straight holes. If there were more trees in the way to make it challenging, then alright, but they are not usually.

[osbogosley]

I agree with a good mix, what I don't get are how high the ratings are for East Metro Park in Manor near Austin and Circle C. I get claustrophobic after playing a round there and I have to go home and play my course in Brady to feel like my arm got a workout.

[NothinButChing]

would love to see more longer courses around SLC ... I think even Solitude is par 3.

[discgolfne1]

I think long holes are great. In NC the majority of the courses I play are in the woods with tight fairways. I think Disc golf could use more courses where you can actually use that driver that you spent so much time in the field throwing.

Winthrop is a blast to play. It will kick you around even without the ropes set up.

I would even like to see pay courses, however with so many free courses around I don't see pay course succeeding. Not to the extent of ball courses. Now if ball courses were to add another green with a disc golf basket I think they could make some extra money however I don't see a full blown disc golf course being successful. Private courses with small fees excluded.

I agree. I've been playing since 1979, and most disc golfers lack ball golf $$$$$.

[Midnightbiker]

I think that DG needs a mix, as we're headed for. Right now the majority of courses are par 54-low 60's. Championship caliber courses (anything above 65 in my mind) have a place in DG and I for one would like to see more of them. The best case scenario is a plot of land that has both courses on one, with either two tees and two pins, two tees one pin, one tee two pins, etc. This is the Charlotte area's bread and butter, and the area's two new courses are going to be championship caliber.

We have both courses in one park in Jack Brooks Park in Hitchcock ,TX.

Course #1 is a great course with shorter holes, a couple of long ones, and its a great course for beginners and advanced players.

Course #2 was built by the course veterans and is longer and much harder. The course goes through the woods, shoots over water, and is for Intermediate and higher players. You have two great courses in one huge park.

Here is a link:


http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1391

[gsw_03]

I agree. I've been playing since 1979, and most disc golfers lack ball golf $$$$$.

not to be crass, but this is part of what is holding our sport back. after 30 years, we still have the reputation of "a stoner sport", and thus lack any real sponsors that could elevate the game to the level it deserves. people still giggle when i tell them i play "frolf", and are then shocked when i admit that i have a steady job and don't smoke, drink or sell drugs. there are plenty of pitch and putt courses in existence, which require very little maintenance due to heavy traffic, and are not likely to go anywhere in the near future (unless, of course, the *sub-par* element of our sport ruins things for the rest- see "bear creek drama thread"). those of us who can afford, and are up to the challenge of, a pay-to-play course would love to see our sport head in that direction. fear of asking for more land makes absolutely no sense to me, and hopefully those players addressing parks departments and city councils do not share this sentiment. why would we continue to ask for as little as possible when there is opportunity for more?

rant over.

[billnchristy]

fear of asking for more land makes absolutely no sense to me, and hopefully those players addressing parks departments and city councils do not share this sentiment. why would we continue to ask for as little as possible when there is opportunity for more?


I am not saying we shouldn't ask for enough land. We just had a 26 acre course open in a 91 acre park. A championship caliber course could probably eat that entire park up. Imagine the Parks and Rec people if you said we need the whole thing for our course. They would tell you how far you could pack that and where.

[gsw_03]

request does not equal demand, just as want is not the same as need. there's no harm in asking for it, as long as the request is not disrespectful and you are prepared for the denial. asking for more than you "need" is a useful tactic when dealing with governmental agencies.

[toothyfish]

You need the shorter, easier to play courses to get popularity in the sport. New enthusiasts pay the bills, so to speak. Free and accessable is great, that's what drew me to it. If courses were all hard or very technical, beginners wouldn't last very long. One advantage of a course local to me is two concrete tees AND two baskets on every hole, 4 ways to play it. The short version is still challenging enough, it keeps it different, and offers casual players some fun. Not every park and club can do this, but it allows a 4500' course and a 8000' course to co-exist. Heck, you can even have the same group play from different tees.

And a short course or open course is better than no course at all. The advantage is that there are alot of courses now, so you can play what you want.

[Midnightbiker]

I think we need all kinds of courses. That way, when you wake up, you can decide where you want to go to play, and how hard you want to play.

[DavidSauls]

I agree with those who say we need a mix. My favorite 5 courses (100+ played) included a 4700' birdiefest and a 10,000', par-72 monster. They serve the broad range of disc golfers.

The perception that we're trending toward the championship courses may be that at one time, we had so few. But I see plenty of new courses in the par-3, often 9-hole, variety as well.

[YonderScott]

people still giggle when i tell them i play "frolf", and are then shocked when i admit that i have a steady job and don't smoke, drink or sell drugs.

fear of asking for more land makes absolutely no sense to me, and hopefully those players addressing parks departments and city councils do not share this sentiment. why would we continue to ask for as little as possible when there is opportunity for more?

rant over.

First off, I laughed when you called if frolf. Try disc golf.

Second off, parks are for everyone, not just disc golf. Most parks have the following...ball fields, walking trails, mtn bike trails, playgrounds, dog parks, parking lots, swimming pools - just to name a few things. You don't walk in and ask a 100 acre park that is suppose to be for an entire community for 90 acres to cater to maybe at best to 100-150 people of said community. You will get rejected. You have to make sensible offers.

[domromer]

It depends. If the course has a decent mix I don't mind a good amount of long holes. But I've played other courses that are nothing but big and wide open. Holes that require 4 easy drives are pretty weak.

[AdamH]

I also used to think easier courses were great for getting new players into the sport. But a few years ago a professional caliber course went in an area with no other courses close by. That course has spawned many new players in the surrounding area and these players seem to, for the most part, get better much quicker than the people who play the beginner course all the time. Did I mention it's a tough course? Shooting a 54 is right about a 990 rated round :eek:

I have nothing against easier courses, I like them all, variety is the spice of life. But I'm not sure I can say beginner courses get new players into the sport more than tough courses. And playing easy courses all the time certainly doesn't make you a better player.

[gsw_03]

First off, I laughed when you called if frolf. Try disc golf.

thanks for the correction. obviously you missed the quotation marks i put around the word frolf. it's ok though, i also thought of myself as an expert of the sport after a whole year of playing.

"I have nothing against easier courses, I like them all, variety is the spice of life. But I'm not sure I can say beginner courses get new players into the sport more than tough courses. And playing easy courses all the time certainly doesn't make you a better player."

Agreed.

[nitegolfer]

Maybe the discs are getting better and longer courses are a logical extension of that fact. Also, in areas that already have well established pitch and putt courses it makes sense to add longer courses to add variety.

I benefited greatly from playing in an area that has good wooded courses along with some more open style long courses. The more different types of courses you play the better prepared you will be. If you are accustomed to playing flat courses then a course on a side of a hill might give you some problems. Or, if you only play wooded courses then going out to an open course on a windy day might cause you to turn everything over and find the hazards.

I recently played the new Indian Creek DG Course (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6888) in a par 67 setup. The course has 20 holes and in this setup there were 7 par 4s. I shot a 65. Best score was a 55 I think. I think there were maybe 2 of the holes that IMO may not be par 4s, but instead par 3s but that's not up to me. But, I'm used to playing 600ft par 3 holes anyway.

This was by far the most enjoyable round of disc golf all year. It took a little over 3 hours to play and was part of our weekly league Bag Tag Challenge. With a course like this in this setup, stagger starts worked pretty well. Would be difficult to get two good tournament rounds in one day (Summer Solstice anyone).

I also, played a 10,000 foot par 70 UAH course during the '93 Pro Worlds. Still remember my 3 on what is now, hole #4 at UAH, during a tournament round. Much more memorable than a 280 foot park job on a par 3 dinker.

[Technohic]

When i was talking about likeing shorter more technical courses better, I didnt really mean pitch and putt. I was talking more along the lines of long tees from 300' to 500' maybe with only a couple longer or shorter holes, with trees. I think something as open as a regular golf course would be absolutely boring with how open they are.

The one I played last weekend, it wasnt as open as a regular golf course but from the long tees, most of them were 400' to close to 1k and it really got boring after a while since the trees it did have was just dictating hyzer or anhyzer throws, no needles to be threaded or OH or utility shots really required.

My idea of a pitch and putt course is some that I see that their longest are under 300'. While those may work on technical aspects, they are also as boring as the big wide open ones, but both serve their purpose and are ok from time to time.

[Technohic]

I can give some examples:

Pitch and putt, tech game:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1260&mode=ci

Wide open mostly distance game:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2516

Courses that are in between with decent combinations
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1777

and

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=188


Thats just using the courses I know. All of them are worth playing for one reason or another but those last 2 are the ones that make me love the sport.

[harr0140]

not to be crass, but this is part of what is holding our sport back. after 30 years, we still have the reputation of "a stoner sport", and thus lack any real sponsors that could elevate the game to the level it deserves. people still giggle when i tell them i play "frolf", and are then shocked when i admit that i have a steady job and don't smoke, drink or sell drugs. there are plenty of pitch and putt courses in existence, which require very little maintenance due to heavy traffic, and are not likely to go anywhere in the near future (unless, of course, the *sub-par* element of our sport ruins things for the rest- see "bear creek drama thread"). those of us who can afford, and are up to the challenge of, a pay-to-play course would love to see our sport head in that direction. fear of asking for more land makes absolutely no sense to me, and hopefully those players addressing parks departments and city councils do not share this sentiment. why would we continue to ask for as little as possible when there is opportunity for more?

rant over.


The problem is you are playing "frolf" and drinking your drugs!

[scarpfish]

Arguments in favor of longer courses:

1. Newer and faster discs are allowing for farther and farther flights making old school courses into pitch and putts.
2. Longer courses would allow for par 4 and par 5 holes to add variety.
3. Longer courses might get potential sponsors to start looking more seriously at the sport, and for parks departments to realize that DG needs to start having dedicated space in to be planned parks instead of having courses retrofitted into existing ones.
4. If a city can only have one course and it allows for a championship layout, you can always retrofit an easier layout (short tees and pins) into it.
5. Longer courses would give advanced players someplace to go away from the overcrowded shorter ones.

Arguments against longer courses:

1. Most recreational players (about 90% of the DG community) do not want to spend 2-3 hours playing a round, and do not want to spend a great amount of their playing time looking for errant throws, and discs lost in water.
2. The shorter existing courses which a lot of advanced players refer to as "pitch and putt", "obsolete", "deuce or die", etc, are still challenging for the great majority of players and since such courses are often overcrowded, we should build more of those type of courses rather than something that caters only to a minority of the DG community.
3. The sport is still in a base building period and will be for sometime to come, and we're going to potentially turn away rec players from becoming future tournament players if we make the learning curve too hard.
4. Long courses really favor big arms and take emphasis away from the short game.
5. Long courses take up more park space. In some cases enough space, where a more practical 24, or 27 holer, or possibly two 18 holers could be placed.

[biscoe]

well-designed longer courses don't favor the big arm. holes that favor big arms the most are open par 3 holes from 375-450. well designed longer holes generally place more emphasis on the approach game than the drive-then-putt holes prevalent today.

[Janbobbo]

I like the idea of having more longer courses, kind of like how it is in golf where they basically just have about 4 holes that are par 3, while par 4 is the standard type of hole.

I think a well designed course should favor big arms aswell as accuracy and players who have a wide arsenal of shot types.

[Dave242]

IMO, course designers should do all they can to maximize what they can do with the available land. It is rare to get the huge amount of land required to have a 10,000' Par-72 course, so when that becomes available, plans should be made to use it all and use it well. This of course is assuming that there are monetary and manpower resources to do so.

If there is a lot of land, but the layout is better suited to 2 Par-54 18-holers, then maximize things that way.

I think it is more common in the majority of parks that I have been in that the land available suits the run-of-the-mill Par-54 courses, so those will continue to be added.

In the last 2-3 years Renaissance has gotten a ton of traffic from casual golfers (including women)......and it is probably in the top 3-5 hardest and most brutal courses in the world. It is eye-opening to see this. Not everyone wants a 1 hour walk-in-the-park round like the OP.

[Roc1Time]

I love non par 54 golf. It makes things alot more interesting

[harr0140]

I am preferential to Par 6 courses! that one made me laugh slightly outloud.

[bikinjack]

IMO, course designers should do all they can to maximize what they can do with the available land. It is rare to get the huge amount of land required to have a 10,000' Par-72 course, so when that becomes available, plans should be made to use it all and use it well. This of course is assuming that there are monetary and manpower resources to do so.

If there is a lot of land, but the layout is better suited to 2 Par-54 18-holers, then maximize things that way.

I think it is more common in the majority of parks that I have been in that the land available suits the run-of-the-mill Par-54 courses, so those will continue to be added.

In the last 2-3 years Renaissance has gotten a ton of traffic from casual golfers (including women)......and it is probably in the top 3-5 hardest and most brutal courses in the world. It is eye-opening to see this. Not everyone wants a 1 hour walk-in-the-park round like the OP.

I can't imagine it being said any better.

[Midnightbiker]

Any course where I get to play disc golf, is fine with me.

[chainmonkey]

But what about the amount of time it takes to play the 1,000 footer. My wife already says I spend to much time at the DG course, like she use to say when I played BG. I would take off the trash and end up at the BG course to get in a quick 9 holes about 3 hours later I got home. Now I stop by the DG course to get in a quick 9 and I am back home in an hour so she does not mind so much. But if the 1,000 footer becomes the norm how long will it take to make the turn providing the course comes back to the parking lot after 9. Don't get me wrong I don't mind 4-5 500-600 foot holes in an 18 hole layout it is when most of them are that long that would concern me. I just do not think the towns in our area would approve that much land be used for a course. Even with short tees for us old guys we still have to walk the long holes.

[craftsman]

A long wide open course is not a bad thing if course diversity isn't a problem. I love technical wooded courses but on a solo day it's my favorite. I can try new discs and technique with a much more forgiving fairway. Granted today I went to a pitch and putt 9er and played it four times to work on some putter drives. Even though I usually play on tougher courses, sometimes a relaxing round is ...well, relaxing:)

[DSCJNKY]

As long as they call them 4's and 5's and drop the idea of Pro-Par just because "the math is easier".
DSCJNKY

[tstack10]

any type of course if fine with me!! most of them around utah are par 54 but couple of them not pitch and putt. solitude has 1200' par 3 but straight down hil. I enjoy courses with a variety of holes and shot requirements to put in a low score.

[discgolfne1]

not to be crass, but this is part of what is holding our sport back. after 30 years, we still have the reputation of "a stoner sport", and thus lack any real sponsors that could elevate the game to the level it deserves. people still giggle when i tell them i play "frolf", and are then shocked when i admit that i have a steady job and don't smoke, drink or sell drugs. there are plenty of pitch and putt courses in existence, which require very little maintenance due to heavy traffic, and are not likely to go anywhere in the near future (unless, of course, the *sub-par* element of our sport ruins things for the rest- see "bear creek drama thread"). those of us who can afford, and are up to the challenge of, a pay-to-play course would love to see our sport head in that direction. fear of asking for more land makes absolutely no sense to me, and hopefully those players addressing parks departments and city councils do not share this sentiment. why would we continue to ask for as little as possible when there is opportunity for more?

rant over.

I am glad you don't drink or do drugs. I don't know where that came from? I don't know what long holes has to do with it either.

Will higher entry fees/longer courses eliminate how we are viewed as a sport (stoner sport?)

I see nothing wrong with pay to play courses, I just don't know how profitable they are for the proprietors. Certain locations...maybe, but country wide I don't know.


I have been watching the debate on how to promote the sport for 30 years. Sponsors would be great (instead of higher and higher entry fees) Pro entry was $20-$25 in 1985. Now we have professional "baggers" I stand by my statement...disc golfers are not (for the most part) an affluent bunch.

There is nothing wrong with short or long courses. You need beginner courses if you are going to get new blood into the sport. Longer courses for those that need a challenge.

My hat is off to anyone that knows the channels to get courses put in at local parks. But remember we are not the only game in town. Longer courses will not always succeed in this environment.

[Three Putt]

Variety is the spice of life.

From the point of view of a parks and recreation guy, if I can get layout that will be around 5,000 ft from the reds and between 6,000-7,000 ft in the blues with some elevation and at least moderately wooded with some shorter, heavily wooded shots I'm happy. I've got some ace runs to keep it fun, and I've got some holes with some distance to challenge the advanced player. I'm not going to worry about challenging a pro, that's not my concern. I want a course that can serve the widest variety of players, and a course that is pro challenging cuts out way too much of the disc golf demographic to be considered responsible use of public land.

The addition of the "long for longs sake" hole has been popping up for a long time now. West City Park in Festus has a 1,000' hole that has a little roll to the field, but otherwise it's a wide-open shot. You can tell why it is there, hole #8 and hole #10 are very far apart, so they threw in the monster-long shot to break up the gigantic walk between holes. I find it to be a boring filler shot that artificially pads the overall course distance. Other people call it the "signature hole" of the course. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The par 72, three to four hour to play course in my mind requires private land. I can't see devoting a public resource to something that will cater to such a small sliver of the overall demographic. I think a lot of us will play a course like that once in a while, but I really can't see doing it all the time. There is a course like that 20 minutes from my house, but going out there is a hassle. It's not marked well and it's super easy to lose a disc, so you have to find somebody to go with and pack up like you hiking the Appalachian Trail. It's cool every once and a while, but even if I had the time to play it every week (which I don't) I wouldn't. Hopefully it will get enough play to stay out there, because it's nice to have around. It's just going to take a super-motivated player who wants to be the best player in the World and play the most challenging course every day to support it, and I'm not that guy. I'd hazard a guess that most of you are not that guy, either.

Using public land to create a monster-challenge like that isn't really feasible unless you are in a market that has a lot of pro-caliber players (creating a demand) and is already saturated with par 54 courses (meeting the needs of the larger demographic.) I don't know that much about the NC scene, but I've always assumed that is why Renny works in that market...lots of PDGA Open-levels players and lots of other options for a hacker to play. There are some places like that, so maybe in the future more markets will develop like that to support those types of courses. If you try to force them on a market that is not ready for that type of course, you run the risk of the little-used Championship course. That's not a good thing for any of us.

[Janbobbo]

Using public land to create a monster-challenge like that isn't really feasible unless you are in a market that has a lot of pro-caliber players (creating a demand) and is already saturated with par 54 courses (meeting the needs of the larger demographic.) I don't know that much about the NC scene, but I've always assumed that is why Renny works in that market...lots of PDGA Open-levels players and lots of other options for a hacker to play. There are some places like that, so maybe in the future more markets will develop like that to support those types of courses. If you try to force them on a market that is not ready for that type of course, you run the risk of the little-used Championship course. That's not a good thing for any of us.

I don't agree, I think courses that offer a monster-challenge are quite popular among players who are not pro-caliber. Alot of players want this type of challenge as a change from the standard type of drive-putt-course. To use an example from my own club, the top few players in the club are rated around 950 but since 2005 we've been working on developing a course that we hope to be a monster-challenge, with long holes and a par at about 66, currently it's just 62. Despite the fact that the accessibility to the course is bad and it's hard to find eventhough you have a general idea of where it's located, there's always some new players there who like the challenge. So what I'm trying to say is that monster-challenges are not just for pro players, alot of beginners will enjoy them aswell.

[scarpfish]

I can't count how many times this year, I've played a pro-caliber course and a rec friendly 9 holer, or 1980's era course in the same day, and have to often wait on folks at the shorter course (even at 10:30 on a weekday morning), while seeing very few folks at the longer one even in the later afternoon hours when you think at least some folks would show up.

I'm all for challenges, but permanent course installations on public land should to take the local player demographic into account. Sadly, we often have a situation where the local club bigwigs want to dedicate their efforts (and club resources) to installing courses with tournament play in mind, not for the everyday joe with three discs. Parks departments shouldn't be asked to spend public funds to help maintenance something built for a select few.

One of the great things about our sport, is that the needed infrastructure for a course is minimal. To me, tweaking up a course during those times when a more advanced layout is needed is a better way to go than permanently installing something that outside that group of advanced players, isn't that much in demand.

[Midnightbiker]

any type of course if fine with me!! most of them around Utah are par 54 but couple of them not pitch and putt. solitude has 1200' par 3 but straight down hill. I enjoy courses with a variety of holes and shot requirements to put in a low score.

A 1200ft par 3? Good grief man, that has got to be a heck of a hill you shoot down.

[CwAlbino]

I don't agree, I think courses that offer a monster-challenge are quite popular among players who are not pro-caliber. Alot of players want this type of challenge as a change from the standard type of drive-putt-course. To use an example from my own club, the top few players in the club are rated around 950 but since 2005 we've been working on developing a course that we hope to be a monster-challenge, with long holes and a par at about 66, currently it's just 62. Despite the fact that the accessibility to the course is bad and it's hard to find eventhough you have a general idea of where it's located, there's always some new players there who like the challenge. So what I'm trying to say is that monster-challenges are not just for pro players, alot of beginners will enjoy them aswell.

I would much much rather have a course with max of 400-500 foot shots that are wooded than a straight open 1000' shot. The 1000' is boring, lame, and there really is no trouble. If you can throw far, you will do well on it. Try a 450' tunnel shot and regardless of how far you can throw, the guy who can throw 300 accurate may just beat your score if you can't be accurate.

[Technohic]

Just found out the one I bragged up about being diverse in variety, is just getting better! They are taking it up from 24 holes to 37! Arboretum-Spiker

Hopefully they get it done by my birthday in June so we can do a day of DG and a cookout. I would be in heaven. (provided I dont lose a disc in the water)

[Janbobbo]

I would much much rather have a course with max of 400-500 foot shots that are wooded than a straight open 1000' shot. The 1000' is boring, lame, and there really is no trouble. If you can throw far, you will do well on it. Try a 450' tunnel shot and regardless of how far you can throw, the guy who can throw 300 accurate may just beat your score if you can't be accurate.

I didn't claim that I want holes that are 1000' without any obstacles. A hole like that is essentially incomplete in my opinion. I favor courses with alot of par 4s and 5s that have alot of obstacles and tunnel shots etc.

[Three Putt]

I don't agree, I think courses that offer a monster-challenge are quite popular among players who are not pro-caliber. Alot of players want this type of challenge as a change from the standard type of drive-putt-course. To use an example from my own club, the top few players in the club are rated around 950 but since 2005 we've been working on developing a course that we hope to be a monster-challenge, with long holes and a par at about 66, currently it's just 62. Despite the fact that the accessibility to the course is bad and it's hard to find eventhough you have a general idea of where it's located, there's always some new players there who like the challenge. So what I'm trying to say is that monster-challenges are not just for pro players, alot of beginners will enjoy them aswell.There will always be a certain type of player who will go for the toughest challenge, and not all of those guys are Open Pros. However, that part of the overall disc golf demographic is always going to be relatively small. As I said before, I'm not in favor of installing pitch and putts. I'm in favor of courses with a balance that can serve the biggest chunk of players on public land. It's not that no one would play the monster-challenge course, it just that the amount of land it takes VS the number of players it serves=irresponsible use of public land. In this country those types of courses are better suited to private land. In Sweden maybe public perception of public land use is different.

[Janbobbo]

There will always be a certain type of player who will go for the toughest challenge, and not all of those guys are Open Pros. However, that part of the overall disc golf demographic is always going to be relatively small. As I said before, I'm not in favor of installing pitch and putts. I'm in favor of courses with a balance that can serve the biggest chunk of players on public land. It's not that no one would play the monster-challenge course, it just that the amount of land it takes VS the number of players it serves=irresponsible use of public land. In this country those types of courses are better suited to private land. In Sweden maybe public perception of public land use is different.

I can see your point about responsible usage of public land. I don't consider that question as so prominent here in Sweden because most of our courses are located on the type of land where there's not little or no other activities in the area. So the courses that we do have where there are other activities or possible future activities are ofcourse not suitable for a long championship type of course. So our course that we're developing is in a big forest area just outside of the city where there's more than enough space to develop the course, but in the vicinity there's also all kinds of shooting ranges, scout activites and some popular jogging tracks surrounding the area. It's all public land though.

I might be wrong about it, but I get the idea that most courses in the US are located in well maintained public parks. Those kinds of courses are generally not suitable to develop into big land consuming courses.

I think the perception of public land might be a bit different between Sweden and the US. Here most land in a city and its vicinity is public in the sense that it's owned by the municipality and you're free to go there.

However I think we should get back to the topic, once again, I like long monster challenge courses and they should be located in places where it's appropriate :)

[bikinjack]

I just got back from playing Renaissance, and then Killborne in Charlotte earlier today. There were more people playing at Renny than at Killborne, although Killborne has usually been more crowded the other times I've been there.

As far as long, open holes, I don't think anyone is really a fan. Holes 11 & 12 at Renny are just that, long and open. Makes them a boring throw-fest. Few trees, and no OB really in play. At my home course, Rankin Lake DGC, we have two long (500ft+) holes. One has an OB creek on the right that is a pain to retrieve discs out of or over, an OB park road on the left, and the fairway narrows as you get closer to the basket. The other has a disc eating swamp-like OB on the left, and a never used OB park road on the right. There are a few trees in play if your shot is very off line, but they aren't a big deal. I like these holes, they aren't just throw-fests. A whole course with holes like these would be fun, but I don't think I would like it as much as a course with lots of variety, which I think is one of the great strengths of Rankin.

[Guurn]

I've stated before that even though I have a pretty good drive I am not a fan of long holes. Maybe that is stating it too simply. I'm not a fan of holes that are just long. The courses that I have played that are longer seem to forget challenges with the length and if they do remember it is fake OBs and such. There really needs to be an infux in creativity in course design. A hole doesn't need to be 750 feet to separate Pros from Joes. It can be that long however if carefully designed. It is sort of like a 150' hole that is really challenging, there aren't many great ones.

Right now it seems like there is this bell curve with 150 foot holes on one side and 1000' on the other and it describes the probability of a hole being designed well.

[Dave242]

As far as long, open holes, I don't think anyone is really a fan. Holes 11 & 12 at Renny are just that, long and open. Makes them a boring throw-fest. Few trees, and no OB really in play.

OB actually lines both of the fairways of 11 & 12. I see you have been playing less than a year. Unless you are a freak (and there are some) and have learned to throw 400-500' already, that OB is not as big a factor. Usually when I've played with a 4-some there, at least one person goes OB at least once per hole. Many times there are a lot more - usually depending on the prevalent cross-winds there.

[odysseus81]

To me the perfect course is a combination of every style of terrain--open, wooded, park-like...plus long, short, and medium holes. All this, plus elevation changes throughout and hazards. Any course that is a bunch of the same is boring. The beginning of this topic was discussing comparisons to ball golf about this issue. My experience with ball golf is that the people that either have money or are very serious play certain courses and rec players play rec courses. I have not observed this as much in disc golf. I live in an area where disc golf is relatively new. We have one new 9 hole course which is most definitely a rec course and a nice, much more challenging 18 hole course will be going in across town. It will be interesting to see how balanced the amount of play at each course is going to be.
If I was forced to pick...I would much rather play a course that challenges my game with length as long as the added distance has a purpose.

[gsw_03]

I am glad you don't drink or do drugs. I don't know where that came from? I don't know what long holes has to do with it either.

Will higher entry fees/longer courses eliminate how we are viewed as a sport (stoner sport?)

I see nothing wrong with pay to play courses, I just don't know how profitable they are for the proprietors. Certain locations...maybe, but country wide I don't know.


I have been watching the debate on how to promote the sport for 30 years. Sponsors would be great (instead of higher and higher entry fees) Pro entry was $20-$25 in 1985. Now we have professional "baggers" I stand by my statement...disc golfers are not (for the most part) an affluent bunch.

There is nothing wrong with short or long courses. You need beginner courses if you are going to get new blood into the sport. Longer courses for those that need a challenge.

My hat is off to anyone that knows the channels to get courses put in at local parks. But remember we are not the only game in town. Longer courses will not always succeed in this environment.

one of your first statements was that disc golfers lack ball golf $$$$$, supporting the view that pay-to-play courses would not be successful. My counter was that those players who drink, smoke and toke on the course (who are also statistically more likely to be the *less affluent* of the bunch), could afford to pay greens fees if they didn't blow so much money on hazardous addictions. and if less people were so nonchalant about getting blasted on the course, it would do wonders for kicking the stoner sport image (thus, my Bear Creek reference) and keeping courses in the ground.

i agree that short courses have their demographic, especially in under-served areas (small towns without any other courses). but for larger metropolitan areas, there needs to be a bigger push towards expanding existing courses or developing longer, more demanding "championship" caliber courses.

[Adam Schneider]

I personally tend not to like really long holes.

That said, I don't have a problem with longer courses going in, IF they put in amateur teepads as well. There's really no reason not to... with long and short tees, you make the course accessible and fun for a much larger number of people.

[gsw_03]

I agree with you completely. Even pros enjoy the short boxes more often that not, since they're a great way to sharpen the mid-range and putter game. Dual tees and/or dual pin positions automatically bumps a course up 0.5-1 stars, in my opinion.

[justin]

So true. I've seen countless families play Borderland (Easton, Ma) and after the first very rocky 330' hole and second 450' hole they're all done. And that's the short course! Long is something like 450' and then +900'.

I'd like to see more facilities with a pro course and an entry-level course. That could help clear out families from the harder course on the weekends.

[superberry]

Long, short, upside down, whatever.

We need well designed courses! Not ones installed quickly and with little thought or pride in the park/work, and not ones installed by parks departments with no previous experience in disc golf.

Too many rec courses are talking over due to our popularity and relative low cost and relative low impact. These are bringing out the yahoos and non-dedicated players, thus the nicer courses are getting "overrun". Well designed courses by good experienced players are moving all to pay to play and even onto private land.

[justin]

It's funny because this is different from region to region. I kind of hinted at it but in Mass we barely have any rec courses. Most are "pro" level which I don't think help to hook as many new players as rec courses would. I will certainly agree that rec or pro all courses need to be designed well.

[bikinjack]

OB actually lines both of the fairways of 11 & 12. I see you have been playing less than a year. Unless you are a freak (and there are some) and have learned to throw 400-500' already, that OB is not as big a factor. Usually when I've played with a 4-some there, at least one person goes OB at least once per hole. Many times there are a lot more - usually depending on the prevalent cross-winds there.

Dave, you pegged me, a noodle armed noob. I guess those holes would be more fun if I threw far enough for the OB to be in play.

[nitegolfer]

I'm all for challenges, but permanent course installations on public land should to take the local player demographic into account. Sadly, we often have a situation where the local club bigwigs want to dedicate their efforts (and club resources) to installing courses with tournament play in mind, not for the everyday joe with three discs. Parks departments shouldn't be asked to spend public funds to help maintenance something built for a select few.


But, if that course brings in say 100 - 200 people on a weekend for a 2 day B Tier tournament then the work the parks department provides results in increased tax revenue for the city through lodging taxes, gas taxes and on and on.

Cities like to look at what their top events are/were, usually by looking at the number of people the event draws. Get in their top 5 or top 10 list and they start to notice.

I do understand your point...It's kinda like building an Olympic size swimming pool in a community where only 10 people know how to swim. But, hold the state swim meet there and then see what happens.

[justin]

I don't think it's been mentioned here but I think it's actually a good thing the PDGA came up with Super Class in order to help very old short courses from becoming obsoleted in a sense by the very fast drivers of today. I'm generally not a fan of the decisions they've been making the last 2yrs or so but this was a very good idea.

Super Class:
http://www.pdga.com/super-class-article

[superberry]

I can't count how many times this year, I've played a pro-caliber course and a rec friendly 9 holer, or 1980's era course in the same day, and have to often wait on folks at the shorter course (even at 10:30 on a weekday morning), while seeing very few folks at the longer one even in the later afternoon hours when you think at least some folks would show up.

I'm all for challenges, but permanent course installations on public land should to take the local player demographic into account. Sadly, we often have a situation where the local club bigwigs want to dedicate their efforts (and club resources) to installing courses with tournament play in mind, not for the everyday joe with three discs. Parks departments shouldn't be asked to spend public funds to help maintenance something built for a select few.

One of the great things about our sport, is that the needed infrastructure for a course is minimal. To me, tweaking up a course during those times when a more advanced layout is needed is a better way to go than permanently installing something that outside that group of advanced players, isn't that much in demand.

That's where multiple tees come in, and why I support multiple tees in lieu of multiple pin placements. With two or more tees, you cater to everyone and the point of this thread becomes null because you don't have to chose which course, just which tee. Good design comes into play then too, and the ability to lay out a course with multiple tees in mind, and taking into account PDGA tee classifications in regards to player ratings.

The average joes and newbies can play the red tees for a casual round and step up to white, blue, or gold tees (as it may be) for some challenge. And the advanced players out there enjoying a challenging round don't have to wait as long because the newbies are playing an easier tee set.

[justin]

The trick with multiple tees is that the short tees should not be so far away from the previous basket that it's a pain in the ass to find them. There are some courses out there with "family" tees that are all under 200' from the pin but have you ever tried playing those? You spend more time walking than throwing. It's just something to consider when designing.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you Mr Berry...or is it Mr Super? ;)

[scarpfish]

But, if that course brings in say 100 - 200 people on a weekend for a 2 day B Tier tournament then the work the parks department provides results in increased tax revenue for the city through lodging taxes, gas taxes and on and on.
Out of 365 days in a year, how many of them involve a tournament? Probably no more than eight in the most extreme cases. I see no point in permanently having a layout that is going to attract minimal play from most of the locals those other 357+ days. Having a practical permanent layout for everyday play with the ability to stretch it into a championship caliber monster makes much more sense. The most prestigious DG tournament held at the same location every year takes place on such a course.

Cities like to look at what their top events are/were, usually by looking at the number of people the event draws. Get in their top 5 or top 10 list and they start to notice.
Unless we're talking a really podunk small town with no other attractions, I doubt a disc golf tournament, even one that draws 200 people is going to make any top event list for the convention and visitors bureau to even notice.

Softball tournaments, youth team sports tournaments draw much bigger crowds than we ever can due to our field size limitations. You're also forgetting so many DG'ers, including our top "pros" have a penchant for finding the cheapest lodging accommodations they can. They'll opt to camp, or stay at another player's house rather than get a motel room. Most players of course may be close enough to the tournament where its just practical to drive home and come back the next day. I'm sure the liquor stores do great business though.

I do understand your point...It's kinda like building an Olympic size swimming pool in a community where only 10 people know how to swim. But, hold the state swim meet there and then see what happens.
Bad analogy, as anyone involved with organized swimming would never build such a facility in a such a place, when it is going to need millions of dollars to build and maintain, and a permanent purpose far beyond an occasional meet to justify its existence. The related expenses for a similar caliber DG course by comparison are a pittance compared to that.

You can get away with building a monster course in a less developed area, but we would be wise to follow the same logic as sports with more permanent infrastructure and build according to the local players' needs. Since DG courses are relatively cheap to build, they're also cheap to adjust as the local players needs adjust.

[Dave242]

I agree that a par-70 or 72 course that takes 2-3 hours to play should only be installed once there are at least 3-4 other easier courses around. The maintenance alone (in most cases) makes such a course problematic.

IMO, a better target might be par-60 to 65 courses with real par-4 and 5 holes intermingled with more straight forward holes. Being introduced to DG on such a course does a much better job of exposing DG for what it can be rather than having courses that are analogous to golf's "executive" par-3 courses (seen as lesser than the real thing....but having their place).

[justin]

Scarp, regardless of how much I do or do not agree with your points I'd just like to say that I really enjoy reading your posts on this matter and you're making a ton of sense.

I think it would be great if the very long courses were mainly private. That could leave a good nitch for people looking to run their own course. Nearly every private course I have played has been excellently maintained (Maine, Mass, NH, WV, Ny, & Va).

[biscoe]

I agree that a par-70 or 72 course that takes 2-3 hours to play should only be installed once there are at least 3-4 other easier courses around. The maintenance alone (in most cases) makes such a course problematic.

IMO, a better target might be par-60 to 65 courses with real par-4 and 5 holes intermingled with more straight forward holes. Being introduced to DG on such a course does a much better job of exposing DG for what it can be rather than having courses that are analogous to golf's "executive" par-3 courses (seen as lesser than the real thing....but having their place).

i think the best dg courses will eventually settle into the 60-65 range for 2 reasons.

to paraphrase harold d.- dg has a much richer variety of par 3 holes available to it than bg does.

and from my own experience- designing good par 5 holes is a bitch.

[nitegolfer]

Out of 365 days in a year, how many of them involve a tournament? Probably no more than eight in the most extreme cases. I see no point in permanently having a layout that is going to attract minimal play from most of the locals those other 357+ days. Having a practical permanent layout for everyday play with the ability to stretch it into a championship caliber monster makes much more sense. The most prestigious DG tournament held at the same location every year takes place on such a course.


Unless we're talking a really podunk small town with no other attractions, I doubt a disc golf tournament, even one that draws 200 people is going to make any top event list for the convention and visitors bureau to even notice.

Softball tournaments, youth team sports tournaments draw much bigger crowds than we ever can due to our field size limitations. You're also forgetting so many DG'ers, including our top "pros" have a penchant for finding the cheapest lodging accommodations they can. They'll opt to camp, or stay at another player's house rather than get a motel room. Most players of course may be close enough to the tournament where its just practical to drive home and come back the next day. I'm sure the liquor stores do great business though.


Bad analogy, as anyone involved with organized swimming would never build such a facility in a such a place, when it is going to need millions of dollars to build and maintain, and a permanent purpose far beyond an occasional meet to justify its existence. The related expenses for a similar caliber DG course by comparison are a pittance compared to that.

You can get away with building a monster course in a less developed area, but we would be wise to follow the same logic as sports with more permanent infrastructure and build according to the local players' needs. Since DG courses are relatively cheap to build, they're also cheap to adjust as the local players needs adjust.

OK.

I do not wish to argue the obvious points of building a course to suit the local player base (Ams, Pros, Kids, Elderly...). But, I only replied to get people to think of having the best of both worlds by building a longer style course that can obviously be configured in short or long positions to appeal to all (including pros) local players as well as attracting a larger contingent to recoup some of the costs. If the course in question is the only course in the community and the only course within say an hour or two or more then yes maybe building a shorter course is the way to go to attract new players. But, if the course is in an area, say where I live, where there are already courses like that, even dating back to 1976, then I'd say make it a longer course.

I do not wish to contradict your points, our geographies are different.