Fair or foul?

[Jimb]

Originally Posted by Sadjo

Here's a video that was taken the same day the pictures were taken. The gentleman talking is the one interested in the doing the project. Here's a direct link...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76z9w...ature=youtu.be



I wish it were easier to inbed the video.

Here you go! I just copied and pasted 76z9wPepbjE from youtube URL and pasted it inbetween the youtube brackets.

The video of the hole is worth seeing, even as short and simple as it is. Incredible property!

[BionicRib]

"Tommy likey, Tommy want wingy"

That hole is sweet looking man. Good luck!

I wish we had property to work with like that in Illinois.....

[Sadjo]

Originally Posted by Jimb

Here you go! I just copied and pasted 76z9wPepbjE from youtube URL and pasted it inbetween the youtube brackets.

The video of the hole is worth seeing, even as short and simple as it is. Incredible property!

That how I posted the video but didn't work. I'm not much of a You Tube person. This was my first video I've ever posted to You Tube.

I take video along with pictures anytime looking over property for a potential course. It allows me a better perspective when going over the property maps and layout possibilities. All land/property in video is included....even both sides of the fence in the end of shot.

[Jimb]

Originally Posted by BionicRib

"Tommy likey, Tommy want wingy"

"God, you're sick. Tell ya what, I'll go turn the fryers back on and throw on some wings for you."

Originally Posted by Sadjo

That how I posted the video but didn't work. I'm not much of a You Tube person. This was my first video I've ever posted to You Tube.

I take video along with pictures anytime looking over property for a potential course. It allows me a better perspective when going over the property maps and layout possibilities. All land/property in video is included....even both sides of the fence in the end of shot.

Nothing wrong with the video at all. Weird that it wouldn't load right for you.

And that's an excellent idea. I've taken some pics when doing this, myself, but if it's a piece of property that I don't get to often, I sometimes can't locate the exact place that I was in the pictures. Video... Brilliant! Thanks.

[Sadjo]

Anyone else have a hole design to consider for feedback? I'm going to head back out and get some more pictures and video for this particular hole. I also plan to what're some other holes designs for feedback.

[johnrhouck]

Originally Posted by Sadjo

This thread is to discuss specific holes or ideas for a hole for existing or proposed courses. I thought this would be a good way for those of us that propose, sell, design or install disc golf courses to discuss specific holes and ideas.

This post will take up two pages...only way for me to get all four pictures up I want to get feed back on.

This hole design is for a proposed pay to play course in Northeast Georgia. The property is 90 acres and includes a lot of great features like a pond, several small creeks, a waterfall (30 feet) and lots of elevation.

One of the holes would be a par 5 that plays 1,050 in a straight line from the long tee, 940 from the medium tee and 820 from the short tee. From the long tee, it would require a 390' tee shot to clear the small lake straight across, 280 to clear the water playing toward where the red or short tee is located. There is a bailout area to the left...where the medium tee would be located.

The attached image is from Google Earth of the property that the hole would cover. I look forward to getting feedback.

Adam, this sure looks like a great place to put a hole. I have an idea for you, but first the disclaimers. As someone has mentioned, we're at a huge disadvantage with just an aerial and some photos and a video. Those are all great, but I would never try to design a hole based on the information we have now. Among other things, we have no idea how these routes go through the trees you have. The "north" red route for example, appears to throw right through big trees, and I'm sure that's not the case. Also it looks like maybe the blue tee is on a dam, so it might make a great tee location and a less-than-ideal basket location. We also don't know what trees you have to avoid to hit your 390' landing area -- it looks like it could be tight in addition to being long.

None of that is your fault, obviously, it's just the nature of long distance, two-dimensional communication.

So, with all those disclaimers... Here's an idea that may make no sense in real life, depending on the details and routing on this property, but at least the concept might be helpful.

I agree with Stan and others that 390' probably isn't going to temp a large number of players, especially if it gets windy. So here's what I would consider: put the basket where the white tee is. Put the tee about 750' back in the woods or on the edge of the woods on the south side, basically on the line where you have the blue route now.

So (and of course I'm guessing at distances here), someone who made two great 375' throws would be parked for an eagle three. Someone who could throw 400' or more could lay up to the water, more on the north side, which would cut down on the approach. (The risk of going for a big drive would be getting wet or hitting the trees on the north side of the pond.)

For most people, they would get a drive in the fairway, throwing as hard as they were comfortable, and -- here's what really makes it work for me -- rather than having to lay up, they could throw across the water to where you have the red tee. From there, they could go over the water to the pin, or maybe there's a righty hyzer that has a wet dropoff behind it.

Hope that make sense. I apologize that I'm on the road right now without access to a printer or scanner. Maybe someone who gets it can diagram it.

Again, this concept may not work for you, but maybe it's something to consider next time. To me it's fair all the way through, offers great strategy options, and does a good job of rewarding risky shots that are well-executed.

One additional note: the whole thing would fall apart if anyone playing the three-shot route had a NAGS along the way. But it takes three good shots to get to the pin, two of which are over water. If the pond had a different shape or different dimensions, or if you didn't have trees where you do, this concept would not work.

[Sadjo]

Great feedback John. The water is a man made pond. It was originally made to water cattle. The property was once used for grazing. The drop off on the three sides without thick trees is not significant at at all.

When I first thought of this hole...my idea was most players that threw from the long tee would opt to throw toward the red tee area because it is an easier throw, there is sufficient room to throw up toward the second landing area. I didn't think many would opt to throw straight across....unless we cleared some of the trees on the far side of the pond.

my hope when starting this thread was more than focussing on this hole. I'm hoping more will post pictures and diagrams of other proposed or actual holes that are currently part of existing courses.

I am one that enjoys the challenge of getting courses approved. I'd rather hand off design to others that are more qualified...but I have learned that there is a threshold that once you cross, getting courses become more difficult. Unfortunately the easiest thing to cut in a proposal is a design fee.

[Steve West]

John -

Your description made me think of Hole 5 at Winthrop Gold , so I overlaid a scaled-down version on this hole. Not really the same.



Then, I realized that if the target was at the blue tee, it would be almost a full-scale version of the last 750 feet, albeit with more room to land in front of the lake.

[New013]

So I just got here and skimmed through a lot of it. I agree with the sentiment that it's not the distance that's really the problem from the blue tee, it's the gap on the far side that possibly makes it unfair. You could cross it only to hit a limb and bounce back. I can't really tell how wide that gap is but I'd say it would need to be in the 80'+ range.

I will say this, #25 at Flyboy is a very similar hole to this one with the exception that it has no trees on the far side of the water to go around. It's around 380 to cross the water and the tee is slightly elevated. It also gives you a bailout to the left but again there's no trees on the bank to navigate. While there I saw people not make it but I also saw some people make it.

Walnut Creek #18 in Va also has a close to 400' water carry except the bailout is on the right. Though that hole also has trees on the bank and the gap is possibly even smaller than the one you have. I've deuced both of those holes and I can say that making the carry was extremely exciting and I think the hole you have designed there would also give that thrill... unless you hit a tree and bounce back.

[Dave242]

Originally Posted by Dave242

Not knowing anything other than the pictures and your description, I am wondering if it might even be better to play it the other direction?? If the reward for big D getting closer to the edge of the water for an easier over-the-pond approach, more players will face a myriad more risk-reward choices.

Originally Posted by johnrhouck

here's what I would consider: put the basket where the white tee is. Put the tee about 750' back in the woods or on the edge of the woods on the south side, basically on the line where you have the blue route now.

So (and of course I'm guessing at distances here), someone who made two great 375' throws would be parked for an eagle three. Someone who could throw 400' or more could lay up to the water, more on the north side, which would cut down on the approach. (The risk of going for a big drive would be getting wet or hitting the trees on the north side of the pond.)

For most people, they would get a drive in the fairway, throwing as hard as they were comfortable, and -- here's what really makes it work for me -- rather than having to lay up, they could throw across the water to where you have the red tee. From there, they could go over the water to the pin, or maybe there's a righty hyzer that has a wet dropoff behind it.

To me it's fair all the way through, offers great strategy options, and does a good job of rewarding risky shots that are well-executed.

One additional note: the whole thing would fall apart if anyone playing the three-shot route had a NAGS along the way. But it takes three good shots to get to the pin, two of which are over water. If the pond had a different shape or different dimensions, or if you didn't have trees where you do, this concept would not work.

Originally Posted by Steve West

John -
Your description made me think of Hole 5 at Winthrop Gold , so I overlaid a scaled-down version on this hole. Not really the same.

Then, I realized that if the target was at the blue tee, it would be almost a full-scale version of the last 750 feet, albeit with more room to land in front of the lake.

Zooming out in Google or Bing Maps (and not knowing the details of the property boundary, terrain, ground-level views, hole routing constraints, etc) it looks like this area of the property has the makings for the signature hole of the course (by a long shot).

One thing that has not been talked about much on the proposed design by sadjo, is that it is uphill (~80' of elevation gain per the topo map). To me at least, it seems like a real grind to play out that hole.....long throw, uphill long throw, uphill long throw/s (through a narrow chute at the end). Not a ton of decision making, and all about muscling long throws and simply executing to get to the chute and then navigating the chute. To me that is a very worthy hole, but not really a "signature" experience.

One other thing about using the same land, but having the basket on the dam is that the throws are down hill. That makes for much more fun, and much more variation on where intended shots will land......resulting in much more decision making on how you will cross the water on the final approach shot.