Fair or foul?

[S.Cann]

Adam,
I think this hole is fair, but extremely difficult. I think that elite players could see a 4 with a solid tee shot and upshot to get into position. I also think that a hole such as this would really spread out the scores in a tournament.

[lowracks]

Originally Posted by S.Cann

Adam,
I think this hole is fair, but extremely difficult. I think that elite players could see a 4 with a solid tee shot and upshot to get into position. I also think that a hole such as this would really spread out the scores in a tournament.

Absolutely. This would be an excellent hole for score separation.

[disc gopher]

looks like a sweet hole! Only bad thing about the shot from the long tee is that you might have the distance, but get caught up in one of the trees on the edge and drop/kick/roll into the lake which would be extremely frustrating considering you made the 400ish shot to clear it....

[smarkquart]

Originally Posted by Buchajs1

They can bail out, if you do no think you can clear the water play the other tee.
By the way sadjo great hole

Forcing a player to bail out just does not seem fair in terms of competition. It puts too much premium on having distance. While there is no way to make every hole perfect, someone who has 250-300 dead accurate should have the same legitimate chance of getting par as someone who can throw 400+.

My home course, Elm Creek, is all about open field distance. There is almost no scoring spread amongst those who can throw 250-350 because most holes are right at the 400 foot mark. Those who can throw 400 or more are the only ones with reasonable chances of getting birdies. So, despite this being a bomber course, for those in the 250-350 foot range it really comes down to who can putt better in the wind because those throwing further have already likely won the top spots. Despite it being my home course, it is definitely not one to brag about.

If you are looking for a hole that can generate a scoring spread based upon fairness, find some way where an accurate player can reach the basket in the same throws as a strong-arm player. Bailing out just seems anti-competitive, almost punitive, producing the wrong type of scoring spread. Players should be punished score-wise when they cannot make the shot they are normally capable of.

[Sadjo]

Originally Posted by smarkquart

I never liked going straight across a body of water, especially so close to the tee. Too many variables like wind and temperature and whatnot come into play.

Without actually being there and seeing your intended flow, I would actually reverse the flow on this potential hole, having the long tee where you have the basket marked and have the basket where the tees are at.

I understand your thought process. I think most players, Advanced and Below, should be playing the medium or the short tee. Having walked this property several times, I can't imagine coming out of the woods and then playing down to the water and across.

I think most players, when throwing from the long, will throw toward the red tee area. The opening from the red tee is fairly open...it just is a more difficult angle to the preferred landing area short of going into the woods.

Idea here is to give one truly challenging par 5 by making the challenge more than just length. I think this makes length, water and accuracy all part of the design.

[Buchajs1]

Originally Posted by smarkquart

Forcing a player to bail out just does not seem fair in terms of competition. It puts too much premium on having distance. While there is no way to make every hole perfect, someone who has 250-300 dead accurate should have the same legitimate chance of getting par as someone who can throw 400+.

My home course, Elm Creek, is all about open field distance. There is almost no scoring spread amongst those who can throw 250-350 because most holes are right at the 400 foot mark. Those who can throw 400 or more are the only ones with reasonable chances of getting birdies. So, despite this being a bomber course, for those in the 250-350 foot range it really comes down to who can putt better in the wind because those throwing further have already likely won the top spots. Despite it being my home course, it is definitely not one to brag about.

If you are looking for a hole that can generate a scoring spread based upon fairness, find some way where an accurate player can reach the basket in the same throws as a strong-arm player. Bailing out just seems anti-competitive, almost punitive, producing the wrong type of scoring spread. Players should be punished score-wise when they cannot make the shot they are normally capable of.

Generally though, somebody who throws that far would play the am tees, the person who drives 400+ plays the pro tees.

[Sadjo]

Originally Posted by smarkquart

Forcing a player to bail out just does not seem fair in terms of competition. It puts too much premium on having distance. While there is no way to make every hole perfect, someone who has 250-300 dead accurate should have the same legitimate chance of getting par as someone who can throw 400+.

If you are looking for a hole that can generate a scoring spread based upon fairness, find some way where an accurate player can reach the basket in the same throws as a strong-arm player. Bailing out just seems anti-competitive, almost punitive, producing the wrong type of scoring spread. Players should be punished score-wise when they cannot make the shot they are normally capable of.

I think someone throwing from the long tee can still throw the 280' shot to the area the short tee is located and still have a chance to putt for a birdie 4 with a well executed 2nd and 3rd shot.

So while the long over the water might seem it gives an advantage, I think playing that risk...not just being long but having to avoid the trees that guard a portion of the far shore, make the hole exciting.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Stan McDaniel]

That does look like an extremely fun hole. The only comment I would throw in is that at 390' (unless there is significant downhill trajectory for the tee shot) you are not going to tempt very many players to go for it. If it were in the range of 340-370' I think you would see a lot more action from the tee. I like to try to lure players into taking chances. That would not tempt me at 390'. At 350 or 360' I would probably not be able to stand laying up if the wind were not an adversary.

[wake_rider]

Originally Posted by smarkquart

I never liked going straight across a body of water, especially so close to the tee. Too many variables like wind and temperature and whatnot come into play. Say I can normally make it but suddenly there is one variable I mentioned above that I was not anticipating being such a factor on this given day and now I cannot make it. I lose a disc on a shot I normally make and because I normally make it, not going for it never crossed my mind. That would ruin my round right there and I would blame it on the course. Thankfully in this scenario it seems the water is protected by woods, cutting down on the wind variable at least.

What I like more, in regards to water holes anyway, is the water being the mid way point and somewhere around 300 feet off the tee. It is still a legitimate danger and more likely you are not even going to attempt to cross it on your first shot. Instead, that first shot is all about teasing the water as close as you can to set up a second shot. The risk versus reward is more of a conscious choice instead of a forced choice. If I go into the water, I blame it on myself, not the course. Blue Ribbon Pines #7 and #22 are perfect examples of what I am talking about.

Without actually being there and seeing your intended flow, I would actually reverse the flow on this potential hole, having the long tee where you have the basket marked and have the basket where the tees are at.

I agree with this.

[smarkquart]

Originally Posted by Buchajs1

Generally though, somebody who throws that far would play the am tees, the person who drives 400+ plays the pro tees.

For the sake of fun rounds where you do not want to lose a disc, I would agree.

However, I have been in two scenarios where that should not be the case.

First, should someone who is rated just as high but has gained that rating because of accuracy and not distance be automatically forced to bail out and possibly be already a stroke behind? Or should that player who is rated just as high play in a lower division so he or she can play from the shorter tee? In one case he or she is at a disadvantage, in the other case he or she has a huge advantage.

Second, and more often my predicament, what if I can drive with the higher ranked players but because of my putting I do better overall in a lower division? I know it sounds slightly demeaning, but I personally do not like being "babied" with the short tees because my putting keeps me around a 915 rating. Risk versus reward should come from my shot selection and execution, but not from deciding which tee to use.

Then again while I am writing this, and again not to sound demeaning, I realized I am using Minnesotan logic in hole design where for better or worse most Minnesotans prefer to play from the long tees regardless of the circumstances.