seedlings
* Ace Member *
Is Rick playing or not? Is it a last minute call?
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
2023 The Open at Austin presented by Lone Star Disc
- Thread starter @CD-
- Start date
I think the course is solid for a ball golf course. There are some neat risk/reward opportunities, and there are plenty of places where it makes you think. I'm very interested to see how pros play a lot of the holes.
General ball golf course negatives to get out of the way:
I'm particularly interested in how the following holes play out.
1. I like that it provides a good wind read and test on the first hole of the day. Also that no one in practice rounds really knows how to get there safely. It's stretching pros right out of the gate. Better be warmed up and know the course conditions that day.
2. I wonder how far pros will attempt to get down the fairway, as it's tight, but the further you go the better sight you have for the approach. I think pros shouldn't go for that though, as it's just not hard enough.
3. I love the combination of they are forcing a right-to-left shot and how the basket sits on the hill. it'll be hard to park this hole.
4. I like most of the hole. I think that anyone with the arm will try and throw their drive past the OB green, as the "layup zone" short of the green isn't really and larger than the zone past the green (different shapes, but not different sizes). I think it rewards distance too much in that regard. Then again, it's practically impossible to make an open 1,000+ foot hole that doesn't reward distance.
5. Seems too difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of players end up parring this one round.
6. I like that the line required is a bit too much for a typical RHBH sweeping hyzer. You can get to the edge of C1 with a good RHBH hyzer, but do pros want to settle for that? However, It doesn't make sense to me that the back side of the basket has trees. Why make a hole that forces an extreme right-to-left shot, but punish people who can do it incredibly well? I don't mind that they're requiring accuracy, but I'd have tried to find a way to put trees on the short/right side of the basket to reward people who can get really far left. *I realize the designers are handcuffed by a lot.
9. I like that they're making holes that the majority of pros will smartly play for par, but the top guys will go for it and either be heavily punished or rewarded. I think many tour courses need a hole like this.
10. I think this is a fantastic hole. You have options (go around either side of the trees between the pond and the OB green). The harder line (left around those trees) provides a much better landing (due to the slope of C1 and the easy of going OB on the other line). There's also an easy layup zone (short of the OB green) that doesn't lead to a gimme approach (due to the slope of C1)
11. I like the combination of a low ceiling and a high floor (due to the mound 150' off the tee).
12. I like the hole a lot, but I don't like the stones around trees in the fairway because it seems like it'll be inconsistent footing. Hopefully pros will be safe, but it's rife with potential for someone to get hurt if they try to run up near those stones and trip. I also don't like it from a design perspective as there's no safe spot to aim for that pros can consistently get to. Every course has this problem; you can hit the fairway but be right next to a tree and have no runup. However, that's a necessary part of DG, and these stones are not. I'd have petitioned the ball golf course to remove them for a week since they both seem slightly unsafe and make the course worse. I do like the aesthetics of them, but the safety issue seems more important. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I do like the lines on 12. The lines they're expecting a pro to take are different than the rest of the course (left-to-right on both shots, and low ceiling/high floor on the second shot).
13. I like how they pushed the pin back just enough that it'll be difficult to park it. It increases the difficulty slightly, but reward accuracy on windy uphill shots and rewards accuracy putting.
14. I think they missed a big opportunity here. The OB left/long is very tight and highly likely for missed putts. But what's the point? If someone misses their putt, they get an OB stroke AND they're left with a 20-30' putt that is 10' uphill. Why does missing a putt here need to be double punished? Why not allow someone to go for it and take the risk of having a comeback putt that is 45' and 10' uphill? If they make that comeback putt, they deserve a 3, not a 4. I'd have liked it better if they did two things. First, put the ropes at 45' away on the left/long. This leaves players safe from tee shots on the next hole. Second, (according to Chuck's previous suggestions about hole 5 at Jonesboro) they could make the OB a relief area once someone has safely reached the peninsula, so that anyone who goes into the relief area simply gets to move their disc to 42' (where the rope is + 1 meter in bounds). That seems like it'd be a much better version of the same hole. I realize island/peninsula greens are the rage, but I don't think they should be as common as they're becoming. We can do better.
15. I like the test of a heavily downhill shot that needs to be a specific distance and it's (somewhat) protected from being a big RHBH hyzer.
16. It's a good "do I want the easy birdie or go for the eagle" hole. It's a bit too long for most players (OB is in play for all 515' feet if you stay right of the basket). I think it'd be a lot better if the OB went further on the right so that you had to have a very accurate drive, not simply a long drive. Players like Eagle and Barela will just throw it long and have no worries. If they end up near the basket, great. If they end up 100' long, then they have a wide open, no risk approach. Add some OB that affects everyone, not just the majority of players. Designing for the majority is step 1. Designing for everyone at that skill level takes a lot more thought.
17. I think I like it because it's very tight but short enough to be fair. But I love how it is this incredibly short hole near the end of a round where distance will be tested over and over. Can the pros slow down their arms enough to hit these tight lines precisely (especially the second shot on this hole)?
18. I like that a very difficult hole is last. I hope that there's a tie or a 1 shot separation between the leaders coming into this hole, because that'll provide for a lot of excitement. Additionally, the difficulty of the hole comes in the approach shot, so positioning on the drive won't take the excitement out (no one should go OB on that), but it will matter a lot (due to the order of who approaches the green first depending on where drives land).
In sum, there are a lot of great elements for a ball golf course, and I especially like the difficulty of the last few holes (because it keeps it interesting for viewers and players). Its still a ball golf course.
*Any of the above ideas are based on someone who tries to think well about course design, but is probably a boneheaded idiot since he has strong opinions about a course he's never played and has no clue about the difficulties the course designers went through to get this in place, nor does he know how much the DGPT changed the course after they rolled into town. But hopefully his thoughts will lead to better course design.
General ball golf course negatives to get out of the way:
- There's a ton of wide open holes, which encourages throwing your best shot over and over again (there are few forced lines), which isn't a great test of a pro's skill
- So much OB (whether it's artificial or natural, OB doesn't have scaled punishment, and it doesn't allow for recovery from a bad shot)
- The difficulty to modify the land to make a good DG course (although clearly they were able to on some holes)
I'm particularly interested in how the following holes play out.
1. I like that it provides a good wind read and test on the first hole of the day. Also that no one in practice rounds really knows how to get there safely. It's stretching pros right out of the gate. Better be warmed up and know the course conditions that day.
2. I wonder how far pros will attempt to get down the fairway, as it's tight, but the further you go the better sight you have for the approach. I think pros shouldn't go for that though, as it's just not hard enough.
3. I love the combination of they are forcing a right-to-left shot and how the basket sits on the hill. it'll be hard to park this hole.
4. I like most of the hole. I think that anyone with the arm will try and throw their drive past the OB green, as the "layup zone" short of the green isn't really and larger than the zone past the green (different shapes, but not different sizes). I think it rewards distance too much in that regard. Then again, it's practically impossible to make an open 1,000+ foot hole that doesn't reward distance.
5. Seems too difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of players end up parring this one round.
6. I like that the line required is a bit too much for a typical RHBH sweeping hyzer. You can get to the edge of C1 with a good RHBH hyzer, but do pros want to settle for that? However, It doesn't make sense to me that the back side of the basket has trees. Why make a hole that forces an extreme right-to-left shot, but punish people who can do it incredibly well? I don't mind that they're requiring accuracy, but I'd have tried to find a way to put trees on the short/right side of the basket to reward people who can get really far left. *I realize the designers are handcuffed by a lot.
9. I like that they're making holes that the majority of pros will smartly play for par, but the top guys will go for it and either be heavily punished or rewarded. I think many tour courses need a hole like this.
10. I think this is a fantastic hole. You have options (go around either side of the trees between the pond and the OB green). The harder line (left around those trees) provides a much better landing (due to the slope of C1 and the easy of going OB on the other line). There's also an easy layup zone (short of the OB green) that doesn't lead to a gimme approach (due to the slope of C1)
11. I like the combination of a low ceiling and a high floor (due to the mound 150' off the tee).
12. I like the hole a lot, but I don't like the stones around trees in the fairway because it seems like it'll be inconsistent footing. Hopefully pros will be safe, but it's rife with potential for someone to get hurt if they try to run up near those stones and trip. I also don't like it from a design perspective as there's no safe spot to aim for that pros can consistently get to. Every course has this problem; you can hit the fairway but be right next to a tree and have no runup. However, that's a necessary part of DG, and these stones are not. I'd have petitioned the ball golf course to remove them for a week since they both seem slightly unsafe and make the course worse. I do like the aesthetics of them, but the safety issue seems more important. Hopefully I'm wrong.
I do like the lines on 12. The lines they're expecting a pro to take are different than the rest of the course (left-to-right on both shots, and low ceiling/high floor on the second shot).
13. I like how they pushed the pin back just enough that it'll be difficult to park it. It increases the difficulty slightly, but reward accuracy on windy uphill shots and rewards accuracy putting.
14. I think they missed a big opportunity here. The OB left/long is very tight and highly likely for missed putts. But what's the point? If someone misses their putt, they get an OB stroke AND they're left with a 20-30' putt that is 10' uphill. Why does missing a putt here need to be double punished? Why not allow someone to go for it and take the risk of having a comeback putt that is 45' and 10' uphill? If they make that comeback putt, they deserve a 3, not a 4. I'd have liked it better if they did two things. First, put the ropes at 45' away on the left/long. This leaves players safe from tee shots on the next hole. Second, (according to Chuck's previous suggestions about hole 5 at Jonesboro) they could make the OB a relief area once someone has safely reached the peninsula, so that anyone who goes into the relief area simply gets to move their disc to 42' (where the rope is + 1 meter in bounds). That seems like it'd be a much better version of the same hole. I realize island/peninsula greens are the rage, but I don't think they should be as common as they're becoming. We can do better.
15. I like the test of a heavily downhill shot that needs to be a specific distance and it's (somewhat) protected from being a big RHBH hyzer.
16. It's a good "do I want the easy birdie or go for the eagle" hole. It's a bit too long for most players (OB is in play for all 515' feet if you stay right of the basket). I think it'd be a lot better if the OB went further on the right so that you had to have a very accurate drive, not simply a long drive. Players like Eagle and Barela will just throw it long and have no worries. If they end up near the basket, great. If they end up 100' long, then they have a wide open, no risk approach. Add some OB that affects everyone, not just the majority of players. Designing for the majority is step 1. Designing for everyone at that skill level takes a lot more thought.
17. I think I like it because it's very tight but short enough to be fair. But I love how it is this incredibly short hole near the end of a round where distance will be tested over and over. Can the pros slow down their arms enough to hit these tight lines precisely (especially the second shot on this hole)?
18. I like that a very difficult hole is last. I hope that there's a tie or a 1 shot separation between the leaders coming into this hole, because that'll provide for a lot of excitement. Additionally, the difficulty of the hole comes in the approach shot, so positioning on the drive won't take the excitement out (no one should go OB on that), but it will matter a lot (due to the order of who approaches the green first depending on where drives land).
In sum, there are a lot of great elements for a ball golf course, and I especially like the difficulty of the last few holes (because it keeps it interesting for viewers and players). Its still a ball golf course.
*Any of the above ideas are based on someone who tries to think well about course design, but is probably a boneheaded idiot since he has strong opinions about a course he's never played and has no clue about the difficulties the course designers went through to get this in place, nor does he know how much the DGPT changed the course after they rolled into town. But hopefully his thoughts will lead to better course design.
Geez Ryan, get carried away much?
I think that a good part of being a course designer is knowing how a hole will score. This helps a designer craft the experience of a course. With that said, here are my predictions (which are almost certainly wrong, but maybe I'll learn from it)
Average Score: 58.8
Hot round: -9 under
Winning score: -20 under
Predicted score breakdowns (with listed par for clarity Steve, not for accuracy
)
1. par 3, 3.15 average, 10% birdies, 65% par, (and I'll do the math once) 25% bogey or worse
2. par 4, 3.7 average, 50% birdies, 30% par
3. par 3, 2.8 average, 35% birdie, 50% par
4. par 5, 5.2 average, 20% birdie, 50% par
5. par 3, 3.15 average, 5% birdie, 80% par
6. par 3, 2.8 average, 25% birdies, 70% par
7. par 3, 2.8 average, 40% birdie, 40% par
8. par 3, 2.65 average, 55% birdie, 30% par
9. par 3, 3.2 average, 5-10% birdie, 65% par
10. par 3, 3.1 average, 15% birdie, 55% par
11. par 3, 2.5 average, 60% birdie, 30% par
12. par 4, 4 average, 25% birdie, 50% par
13. par 3, 3 average, 15% birdie, 70% par
14. par 3, 2.6 average, 65% birdie, 25% par, with a noteworthy amount of pros carding 2x bogey every round to throw off the easy math
15. par 3, 2.75 average, 45% birdie, 35% par
16. par 4, 3.15 average, 80+% birdie (or better), 15+% par, and someone will find a way to bogey this every round (even if there's a cut)
17. par 4, 3.85 average, 30% birdie, 55% par
18. par 4, 4.2, 15% birdie, 50% par
Average Score: 58.8
Hot round: -9 under
Winning score: -20 under
Predicted score breakdowns (with listed par for clarity Steve, not for accuracy
)1. par 3, 3.15 average, 10% birdies, 65% par, (and I'll do the math once) 25% bogey or worse
2. par 4, 3.7 average, 50% birdies, 30% par
3. par 3, 2.8 average, 35% birdie, 50% par
4. par 5, 5.2 average, 20% birdie, 50% par
5. par 3, 3.15 average, 5% birdie, 80% par
6. par 3, 2.8 average, 25% birdies, 70% par
7. par 3, 2.8 average, 40% birdie, 40% par
8. par 3, 2.65 average, 55% birdie, 30% par
9. par 3, 3.2 average, 5-10% birdie, 65% par
10. par 3, 3.1 average, 15% birdie, 55% par
11. par 3, 2.5 average, 60% birdie, 30% par
12. par 4, 4 average, 25% birdie, 50% par
13. par 3, 3 average, 15% birdie, 70% par
14. par 3, 2.6 average, 65% birdie, 25% par, with a noteworthy amount of pros carding 2x bogey every round to throw off the easy math
15. par 3, 2.75 average, 45% birdie, 35% par
16. par 4, 3.15 average, 80+% birdie (or better), 15+% par, and someone will find a way to bogey this every round (even if there's a cut)
17. par 4, 3.85 average, 30% birdie, 55% par
18. par 4, 4.2, 15% birdie, 50% par
Spectacledbear
Birdie Member
It's just confusing to know where the OB is and isn't.. hole 17 isn't the best wooded hole i guess, but i was just thinking: Wish they were on a wooded course instead of this..
I watched the vid, and they complain about it on hole 6, which is quite hard to reach. It sounds like they're complaining because it's too hard, but they never tried a turnover FH shot. Ezra went left of the hole on that shot.
I agree the course is difficult, but complaining about it being difficult says more about them than it does about course design.
In context, a couple holes later Uli complains about his putt for birdie being too obstructed and then makes it. Their expectations are simply that courses are easier than this one is. A variety of difficulty is a good thing.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
...(with listed par for clarity Steve, not for accuracy
Listed par is THE par. The TD has final say.
haha right, but that doesn't mean it should be the par.
The weather today is going to increase my estimated scores across the board.
@CD-
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2020
- Messages
- 817
poor FPO, cold and windy is not fun. Don't expect many birdie looks or longer putts to fall. Probably a good situation for accurate power throwers like Salonen, Blomroos, Handley, and Hansen utilizing both FH & BH. Definitely diminishes Salonen's putting issues when everyone is laying up or missing longer putts.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
Well, as long as we are just bloviating for our own amusement:
I'm reminded of how photographers who are just getting started tend to overdo the color saturation and contrast. The result is people saying "Look at that picture!"
When people look at pictures by more experienced photographers, they say things like "Look at the character in that gnarly tree growing in those ancient rocks."
This design puts all the features, risks, and intended lines right in your face (even when blind shots are part of the risk). I imagine the players feel like they are being dared by a design. I'd prefer a course where the players feel like they are being challenged by the course.
The difference is between designing for where the discs will fly vs. designing for what will happen in the players' heads. Often, designing to get in players' heads will result in less real risk in favor of apparent risk, less sharply defined risk in favor of fuzzier risk, and certainly less rope in favor of physical features.
I'm reminded of how photographers who are just getting started tend to overdo the color saturation and contrast. The result is people saying "Look at that picture!"
When people look at pictures by more experienced photographers, they say things like "Look at the character in that gnarly tree growing in those ancient rocks."
This design puts all the features, risks, and intended lines right in your face (even when blind shots are part of the risk). I imagine the players feel like they are being dared by a design. I'd prefer a course where the players feel like they are being challenged by the course.
The difference is between designing for where the discs will fly vs. designing for what will happen in the players' heads. Often, designing to get in players' heads will result in less real risk in favor of apparent risk, less sharply defined risk in favor of fuzzier risk, and certainly less rope in favor of physical features.
Good points. I hope this discussion isn't pointless. I hope courses will be designed better as a result of our discussions on here, although I think it'll take a while.
Is this a way of saying you'd prefer less OB rope, but with good reasons? If not, what am I missing/what are you saying?
Good grief. What is DGPT and DGN even doing? This course is hideous. If the goal was to find a piece of property with less potential than Winthrop.....kudos on a job well done. My first watch of the year was this FPO Austin livestream. It is nearly unwatchable. Dreadful course, difficult to see OB, random OB, rectangular man-made green areas???? Are venues simply bid for? Did someone with a pile of cash just throw it DGPT/DGN's way and presto....an event is born. Christ, if you are going to do this, at least find a maintained piece of property in a nice climate. There are plenty of golf courses that water the grass all winter.
I simply must be in the minority that wants to watch pro disc golf that resembles the game I play. Obviously not the skill set, but everything else.
/end rant.
I simply must be in the minority that wants to watch pro disc golf that resembles the game I play. Obviously not the skill set, but everything else.
/end rant.
I don't think you're in the minorityGood grief. What is DGPT and DGN even doing? This course is hideous. If the goal was to find a piece of property with less potential than Winthrop.....kudos on a job well done. My first watch of the year was this FPO Austin livestream. It is nearly unwatchable. Dreadful course, difficult to see OB, random OB, rectangular man-made green areas???? Are venues simply bid for? Did someone with a pile of cash just throw it DGPT/DGN's way and presto....an event is born. Christ, if you are going to do this, at least find a maintained piece of property in a nice climate. There are plenty of golf courses that water the grass all winter.
I simply must be in the minority that wants to watch pro disc golf that resembles the game I play. Obviously not the skill set, but everything else.
/end rant.
Current leader is 997 rated. Time for me to go pro.
Alden Harris with the ace on the downhill 15th. Anyone have video?
Similar threads
