Disc Golf Store
  #1  
Old 01-21-2012, 04:09 PM
BrotherDave's Avatar
BrotherDave BrotherDave is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NC
Years Playing: 6.7
Courses Played: 94
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 11,056
"NAGS" Zone (from DGR)

keltik brought up an interesting discussion over on DGR, so I'm stealing it over to here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keltik
So I've been reading the latest Disc Golfer magazine, and the John Houck article about designing par 5 holes mentioned the NAGS zone. NAGS stands for Not A Golf Shot. Houck asserts that shots from 100-150 ft away from the basket are NAGS. I don't know that I necessarily agree with this sentiment. You still have to throw a disc at the basket.

What is so bad about a short up shot on a long hole? Do I need to be a 990 rated player to understand what he's talking about?
To clarify, NAGS are boring upshots that result from when your great drive still leaves you 100-150' of hole left, presumably open, so that everyone lays it up and then there isn't really any scoring separation.

For example: 500' hole, mostly open. Your drive is 350' and you're left with a dinky 150', unrewarding upshot.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-21-2012, 04:21 PM
Connor Jones's Avatar
Connor Jones Connor Jones is offline
International Hair Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Years Playing: 3.9
Courses Played: 64
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,077
I can think of a particular hole on my home course that is like this..don't get me wrong, I mess it up all the time, but then again i'm not a highly ranked player.

I think if I was going to design a course I would try and do my best to avoid those type of shots, I'd rather have to put together two 300+ great golf shots and get the bird(par 4 scenario) look then bomb something down an open field, then get up and down for a 3
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-21-2012, 04:36 PM
optidiscic's Avatar
optidiscic optidiscic is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Discopolis Pennsylvania
Years Playing: 11.9
Courses Played: 155
Posts: 6,213
Send a message via Yahoo to optidiscic
I would avoid thinking of holes this way

So a designer attempts to rectify the "NAGS" zone......designs some tricky approaches and tough greens...problem solved

Nope you just took away any advantage a big arm has as he will lay up in the same approach zone as weaker arms

So a designer attempts to rectify the "NAGS" zone by changing the distance either shorter or longer so its reachable in 1 shot or requires 2 shots

Nope Again you are taking the advantage away from the big arm and requiring him to throw like a lesser arm either 1x or 2x

Bottom Line for any hole that is a big arm hole the lesser arms should have a NAGS and the big arms should have a putt

NAGS is what you are left with if you cant park a 430 foot hole....deal with it...its ok to reward the big guns a few times on a course
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-21-2012, 04:42 PM
keltik's Avatar
keltik keltik is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Horneytown NC
Years Playing: 7
Courses Played: 35
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,784
you're welcome Broseph David.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-21-2012, 04:49 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.1
Courses Played: 569
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,319
Quote:
optidiscic -Bottom Line for any hole that is a big arm hole the lesser arms should have a NAGS and the big arms should have a putt
Absolutely poor design unless you mean the bigger arm is in a higher rating/skill class than the lesser arm.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-21-2012, 04:51 PM
Connor Jones's Avatar
Connor Jones Connor Jones is offline
International Hair Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Years Playing: 3.9
Courses Played: 64
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,077
First designing discussion I am excited for.

Commence my entertainment operation please
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-21-2012, 04:52 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.1
Courses Played: 569
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,319
We've got the kernels starting to pop...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-21-2012, 04:57 PM
optidiscic's Avatar
optidiscic optidiscic is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Discopolis Pennsylvania
Years Playing: 11.9
Courses Played: 155
Posts: 6,213
Send a message via Yahoo to optidiscic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Absolutely poor design unless you mean the bigger arm is in a higher rating/skill class than the lesser arm.
so you are against distance as an obstacle? I don't think there is anything wrong with a few holes that favor the bigger arm and leave the lesser arm with a long look
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-21-2012, 05:03 PM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 18.9
Courses Played: 78
Posts: 3,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by optidiscic View Post
I would avoid thinking of holes this way

So a designer attempts to rectify the "NAGS" zone......designs some tricky approaches and tough greens...problem solved

Nope you just took away any advantage a big arm has as he will lay up in the same approach zone as weaker arms

So a designer attempts to rectify the "NAGS" zone by changing the distance either shorter or longer so its reachable in 1 shot or requires 2 shots

Nope Again you are taking the advantage away from the big arm and requiring him to throw like a lesser arm either 1x or 2x

Bottom Line for any hole that is a big arm hole the lesser arms should have a NAGS and the big arms should have a putt

NAGS is what you are left with if you cant park a 430 foot hole....deal with it...its ok to reward the big guns a few times on a course
430 foot open holes are among the very worst holes in disc golf. the "reward" for having a big arm should generally be that you are able to throw a more controlled, higher percentage shot than someone who has to max out their distance to reach the same spot. free scoring ops for big arms should be as few as possible although it is very difficult to avoid some here and there.
Reply With Quote
 
  

  #10  
Old 01-21-2012, 05:07 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.1
Courses Played: 569
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,319
Quote:
optidiscic - so you are against distance as an obstacle? I don't think there is anything wrong with a few holes that favor the bigger arm and leave the lesser arm with a long look
Only on par 5s. Those who throw farther or more powerfully already have an advantage on every hole and every throw except a short downhill hole. To design holes specifically where only the longest arms of a skill level can reach it without risk is simply poor and unfair design.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:23 PM.


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