Is THIS what we want?

[oldmandiscer]

I guess we'll never know about Idlewild.

What about it? Too much silly OB in your opinion?

 

[Plastic Thunder]

Good thing you pointed out the sticks, for a moment I thought you might be asking about the girl at the basket......

This was installed for a tournament coming up in Belton TX. I understand when you repurpose a ball golf course for disc golf, you may need to figure out ways to add challenge.

BUT

Is this what we want to see? Would it be fun to see the pros play on a course full if man made obstacles?

Thoughts?

*i did not write the caption in the picture.

 

[Nick Pacific]

Very wild. I remember that and I also remember several nicknames for the course that fellow players were using, all of which are unprintable here. Not a course I was ever interested in playing again.

I loved it. Tight, wooded, and got about half of the players absolutely heated. Count me in . I'll never forget hearing ol Bill Gilbert (RIP) before the tournament absolutely losing his mind over that course layout, I was crying with laughter.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I loved it. Tight, wooded, and got about half of the players absolutely heated. Count me in . I'll never forget hearing ol Bill Gilbert (RIP) before the tournament absolutely losing his mind over that course layout, I was crying with laughter.

Wow...you liked that huh? I think you are the first person I have ever heard say that about that course.

 

[Nick Pacific]

Wow...you liked that huh? I think you are the first person I have ever heard say that about that course.

I can relate to the owner reveling in making the course frustrating and enjoying getting into people's heads. That's something that I would absolutely love and do.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I can relate to the owner reveling in making the course frustrating and enjoying getting into people's heads. That's something that I would absolutely love and do.

Funny you say that. I worked with a buddy of mine to layout a temp course once (that we unfortunately never got to play) and he asked, "How hard do you want this basket placement?"

My response was, "I want them to curse my name."

 

[DavidSauls]

Funny you say that. I worked with a buddy of mine to layout a temp course once (that we unfortunately never got to play) and he asked, "How hard do you want this basket placement?"

My response was, "I want them to curse my name."

I disc golf friend of mine, playing a tournament round with me on our private course, once turned to me and calmly said, "Why do you hate disc golfers?"

I took it as a compliment.

 

[Nick Pacific]

I disc golf friend of mine, playing a tournament round with me on our private course, once turned to me and calmly said, "Why do you hate disc golfers?"

I took it as a compliment.

The one thing that seems to be beyond a lot of player's heads is the fact that everyone's playing against the course, so they too have to deal with baskets that don't catch, OB that makes no sense, gaps that don't exist, tree branches that should be cut and obstacles that should be removed. When I see "unfairness" on the course layout, I think good, that will frustrate people.

 

[DavidSauls]

We think of it as demanding good decisions and execution, not "luck". Though in some cases, luck comes into playing the odds -- a bad shot will get a bad result 80% of the time; a good shot may get a bad result 20% of the time. But if you execute well, those odds will work out in your favor. (I'm used to this sort of thinking, from other sports).

My friend who asked "Why do you hate disc golfers?" knew this, and was joking; he wasn't complaining about luck, but that some holes were so demanding.

The sidebar is that it's a private course, and only has to cater to an audience of 2 -- the owners. Playing it is voluntary for everyone else.

 

[oldmandiscer]

The one thing that seems to be beyond a lot of player's heads is the fact that everyone's playing against the course, so they too have to deal with baskets that don't catch, OB that makes no sense, gaps that don't exist, tree branches that should be cut and obstacles that should be removed. When I see "unfairness" on the course layout, I think good, that will frustrate people.

So excellent shots should get punished and marginal ones get lucky?

I prefer to see the highest quality shots rewarded all of the time and marginal ones punished most of the time. Certainly marginal shots can get that lucky tree kick, nothing can be done about that. But we can have a fair yet challenging line to the basket and allow the best shots to get there if executed.

Where I have a problem is when we see a 350 foot hole turning left or right, then a 8 foot gap 250 feet off the tee with a tree smack dead center of it. That is probably something you enjoy. An 8 foot gap is reasonable, two 3 1/2 foot gaps are not. Or some random branch that hangs down catching a 1/3rd of pure shots. That's just dumb.

 

[Getty]

So excellent shots should get punished and marginal ones get lucky?

How many courses have you designed and installed? Are you a doer or are you a keyboard complainer?

 

[Dingus]

So excellent shots should get punished and marginal ones get lucky?

Close. Modern golf course design aims to punish good but not great shots. The point is to force excellence in order to get an advantage, while not punishing poor shots beyond their already poor position. Instead of placing bunkers in places where bad shots are hit, bunkers are now placed in prime locations forcing the player to attempt a shot that requires extreme precision, or lay up. Poorly hit shots will not go in the bunker, only "good but not great" shots will.

There was an article about this in the past couple years, someone link it for me.

 

[DavidSauls]

Close. Modern golf course design aims to punish good but not great shots. The point is to force excellence in order to get an advantage, while not punishing poor shots beyond their already poor position. Instead of placing bunkers in places where bad shots are hit, bunkers are now placed in prime locations forcing the player to attempt a shot that requires extreme precision, or lay up. Poorly hit shots will not go in the bunker, only "good but not great" shots will.

There was an article about this in the past couple years, someone link it for me.

Thanks. As just a passing golf fan, I've sort of wondered about that. I wasn't quite sure why sand traps are often in the line of play and near the green. I also find their often-scalloped contours odd; nearly-identical shots might land in one, or not. "Forcing excellence" makes sense.

 

[Steve West]

There is certainly room for chance in disc golf. A three-round tournament will see players attempting 150 throws or more. Even if you break it down to 54 tee throws, etc., that is still enough of a sample size that the results do not need to be 100% punished or 100% rewarded to be an effective test of skill.

However, when there are full-penalty-play-it-as-it-lies sand traps* near enough to the target that it makes no sense to attempt to avoid them, we have gone beyond a test of skill to a game of chance.

Of course, games of chance are very popular. Especially when cash can be won. And, a lot of fans don't really seem to want a true test of skill; because they want to see last-hole drama, playoffs, come-from-behinds, and underdog stories.

* Using causal relief for these sand traps would at least bring in the skill factor of putting from farther away where the disc entered the sand trap.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not a fan of the "hazards" (play it as it lies, with a penalty stroke), for mostly aesthetic reasons. They feel like landing on the wrong square in a board game, to me.

But like trees, every other design feature can be used well, or poorly.

I do think we make too little use of the casual relief areas, where they might force longer putts but afford the opportunity to save that stroke, with a good putt.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I'm not a fan of the "hazards" (play it as it lies, with a penalty stroke), for mostly aesthetic reasons. They feel like landing on the wrong square in a board game, to me.

But like trees, every other design feature can be used well, or poorly.

I do think we make too little use of the casual relief areas, where they might force longer putts but afford the opportunity to save that stroke, with a good putt.

From a TD perspective, I love hazards. For example, if I have a OB island you have to do one of a few things because you often cannot see the exact disc flight: First you need to place a spotter to determine where the disc was last in bounds. Or you have to get a PDGA waiver and have everyone who ends up OB has to go to a drop zone. Spotters willing to sit out on the course for two rounds is difficult and placing a DZ that people aren't going to bitch about is impossible.

But if you just designate everything outside of the island as a hazard it greatly simplifies things in a tourney situation.

 

[Steve West]

From a TD perspective, I love hazards. For example, if I have a OB island you have to do one of a few things because you often cannot see the exact disc flight: First you need to place a spotter to determine where the disc was last in bounds. Or you have to get a PDGA waiver and have everyone who ends up OB has to go to a drop zone. Spotters willing to sit out on the course for two rounds is difficult and placing a DZ that people aren't going to bitch about is impossible.

But if you just designate everything outside of the island as a hazard it greatly simplifies things in a tourney situation.

One gimmick to rectify another.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Close. Modern golf course design aims to punish good but not great shots. The point is to force excellence in order to get an advantage, while not punishing poor shots beyond their already poor position. Instead of placing bunkers in places where bad shots are hit, bunkers are now placed in prime locations forcing the player to attempt a shot that requires extreme precision, or lay up. Poorly hit shots will not go in the bunker, only "good but not great" shots will.

There was an article about this in the past couple years, someone link it for me.

As far as bunkers I see players simply trying to get lucky and skip through them. Some skill is required to hit the sand but ultimately it is lucky to skip through.

 

[oldmandiscer]

There is certainly room for chance in disc golf. A three-round tournament will see players attempting 150 throws or more. Even if you break it down to 54 tee throws, etc., that is still enough of a sample size that the results do not need to be 100% punished or 100% rewarded to be an effective test of skill.

However, when there are full-penalty-play-it-as-it-lies sand traps* near enough to the target that it makes no sense to attempt to avoid them, we have gone beyond a test of skill to a game of chance.

Of course, games of chance are very popular. Especially when cash can be won. And, a lot of fans don't really seem to want a true test of skill; because they want to see last-hole drama, playoffs, come-from-behinds, and underdog stories.

* Using causal relief for these sand traps would at least bring in the skill factor of putting from farther away where the disc entered the sand trap.

Agreed. If the bunker is 3 or even 10 feet away from the basket at 450 feet, heck even 350 feet, their is definitely a game of luck involved. Same with water or ropes. Then raise the basket and put it on a mound. Why not? smh

 

[oldmandiscer]

From a TD perspective, I love hazards. For example, if I have a OB island you have to do one of a few things because you often cannot see the exact disc flight: First you need to place a spotter to determine where the disc was last in bounds. Or you have to get a PDGA waiver and have everyone who ends up OB has to go to a drop zone. Spotters willing to sit out on the course for two rounds is difficult and placing a DZ that people aren't going to bitch about is impossible.

But if you just designate everything outside of the island as a hazard it greatly simplifies things in a tourney situation.

Why does it need to be an island green? Because if players are close they will make too many birdies?