Disc Golf Course Review

Disc Golf Course Review (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/index.php)
-   Course Design (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=28)
-   -   Wooded hole fairway (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77542)

mubhcaeb78 12-10-2012 03:37 PM

Wooded hole fairway
 
Another discussion about the ideal..
While the ideal will be different based on skill.. maybe there can be some consensus on what is just right..

On a wooded fairway what are your preferences for design?

A walled appearance (brp4).. that can make recovery shots very difficult/impossible.
Or using restricting trees (7oaks19).. that give some paths back to basket if outside fairway.

And what width is too narrow? brp 15ish the minimum you'd use? Or go down to 10, 5?

brp4
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course...2/aefe845f.jpg
7oaks19
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course...3/820f8e45.jpg

bradharris 12-10-2012 03:44 PM

I think I like the second option, with more scatter.

The primary reason for this is that it provides more opportunity for the disc to move in a natural flight. The straight wall means you have to throw it dead straight. Any sort of S curve is likely to result in an unpredictable kick (unpredictable often is unfair).

Of course, with 18 holes, there's room for both on a course...

Cgkdisc 12-10-2012 03:55 PM

The second fairway plus some more trimming so there's maybe 10 feet clear outside the trees that define a tight fairway. BRP4 would be bit better if a few strategic trees were taken out on either side to allow challenging recovery shots and the right side was trimmed back a bit. Left side misses are much more forgiving for recovery attempts. The biggest issue with BRP4 is for tournament play where it backs up not just due to the tightness, but if 100 feet longer, it would allow more than one group to play it at a time.

Royal Hill 12-10-2012 05:23 PM

My aesthetic sense seems to appreciate the second style better. Yet I realize the second course designer couldn't make a BRP 4 with those trees and vegetation even if they wanted to.

There are pros and cons, even just speaking esthetically. (I'm only going to talk aesthetically, not for scoring/fairness issues)

Regimented, straight lined, well defined courses - read very clear visually, and appeal to some. It shows effort and control over a wild landscape. (Ball golf courses as evidence of man's mastery over nature - came could be said of formal rose gardens) However, it also becomes obvious when something becomes out of place, or disrupted. And generally, nature detests straight lines, so it risks looks "artificial". Sometimes you get the feeling or sense that the hole design is "fighting the land".

Organic, flowing style (second pic): Originally likely cleared and formally mapped out, and likely maintained, yet truly "the Play Determines Form" over time. Hole is "going with the lay of the land" No straight lines, all curves, everywhere, with no hard edged boundaries. The flipside, is that to some, this looks careless and without intent. To some observers (outsiders that call the parks department) that might mean "oh my G...so much trampling!"

Again, I like the second pic if I had to chose, but I'd really really like a blend - Go with the organic hole design, but do go with top notch clean edged, "formal" done tee areas and linking paths. Shows you can be formal, but have chosen not to do so in the area of play. Howver, one or two regimented holes can work as being memorable - BRP is almost defined by that hole at this point, so its working in that regard.

OK, so that's just about esthetics and not player scoring effects, so I strayed from topic, right? Well, it could be translatable to see that organic style design leads to more organically generated recovery shots, and formal lines will create more uniform recovery effort challenges.

Jimb 12-10-2012 11:11 PM

I'd love to play both... on the same course, even. :)

I think that I'd enjoy the 2nd pic more on a regular basis and that the first pic would be very frustrating except for the occasional sweet shot down the middle. So if I had to pick, it would be #2.

As far as fairway width limitations, it really depends on the length and shape of the hole. Give me a 10' opening 100' from the tee and I'll dig that. But make that same opening 200' feet away and I'm missing it more than I'm hitting it. Hopefully this makes sense.

Again, I think that both styles have their place in design. Although it can be very frustrating to not have a line towards the basket once you get off of the fairway, occasionally having to simply pitch back out onto the fairway isn't always a bad thing.

aaron50_07 12-10-2012 11:21 PM

Ah I love BRP!

Sadjo 12-11-2012 07:33 AM

Having played BRP and courses that offer similar holes to the 2nd picture, I can say i understand both sides of the discussion. One thing I don't like is neither appears to have much beyond having to hit tight lines for an exceptionally long time before things open up.

However, if one was designing a course and either option was available for a hole within the design, both would be hard to pass up from including that challenge.

What I would love to see included in more designs is making a roller one of the better choices off the tee. It seems really nice controlled rollers are not as a big part of the game as they used to be.

nkhoury 12-11-2012 08:00 AM

that second picture, from seven oaks. man. that hole is a beast. it's a score destroyer if you get a bad kick. the gap is smaller than it looks. lol

DSCJNKY 12-11-2012 08:51 AM

How often do you really have an alley of trees like the one at BRP though?
DSCJNKY

mubhcaeb78 12-11-2012 09:57 AM

In WI there are quite a few woods that were clear cut and row planted. I drive past one regularly.
At a school course that is getting redesigned, they have some rows of pines that could imitate brp4 just not as long. Thus this thread..


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.