Sugaree in retrospect

[DavidSauls]

I haven't played enough of anyone's to say, but I used to joke that Harold Duvall's courses seemed to have one short, extremely narrow hole each.

After that, I think it would be subject to what land they're working with. Of SuperDesignerA gets commissions for two courses, one in deep woods and one in a groomed park, I doubt there'd be much similarity. Any tendencies might only show when they get a property that favors them.

 

[Three Putt]

31, which i know is way too many. We always seem to be riding the rollercoaster

between closing the course, and adding more holes. Should have stopped at 18.

I know it's a ton of work, but the only negative thing I've ever heard anyone who had been there say about Sugaree is how far in the middle of nowhere it is. They all said the golf was well worth the trip, so you must be doing something right there.

 

[Mando]

I know it's a ton of work, but the only negative thing I've ever heard anyone who had been there say about Sugaree is how far in the middle of nowhere it is. They all said the golf was well worth the trip, so you must be doing something right there.

Plenty of flaws, but I think most people tend to subsribe to the "If you don't have something nice to say..." sense of decorum, unless they are reviewing the course.

 

[Steve West]

That's an interesting perception. Do you or anyone else surfing this thread think John, I or other designer with several designs you've played have a distinctive design approach such that you could guess among X, Y or Z (if it was for sure one of these three) who likely designed a course you just played?

Definitely. Between Cale, Mackey, Tim G, you, and Houck, it wouldn't be hard to make five caricaturized holes that nearly every local would be able to match with the designer. In fact, I might as well do it now.

Cale (the "AntiChuck", according to my wife): A 662 foot par "4" with no trees to bother any moderately accurate throw.

Mackey: A fairly short tee throw through trees - which doesn't quite work for RHBH. Par "5".

Tim G: Big drive, big drive, big drive, drop-in.

Chuck: RHBH flex throw through a 30 foot wide treed fairway with several small trees 30 feet from the target.

Houck. Huge drive over a treed valley to the top of a hill with the second throw being a whole different direction downhill RHBH anhyzer to a target on the downhill slope.

 

[scooby snack]

That's an interesting perception. Do you or anyone else surfing this thread think John, I or other designer with several designs you've played have a distinctive design approach such that you could guess among X, Y or Z (if it was for sure one of these three) who likely designed a course you just played?

Yes and no. I do think at least some designers tend to put their own stamp on courses they've designed.

I've never played one of your courses, so I can't speak as to whether this applies to you. I have played Houck, Steady Ed, and Duvall courses with this very perception.

 

[dreadlock86]

That's an interesting perception. Do you or anyone else surfing this thread think John, I or other designer with several designs you've played have a distinctive design approach such that you could guess among X, Y or Z (if it was for sure one of these three) who likely designed a course you just played?

being in Texas, i've played a lot of Houck courses. that said, most (but not all) the Houck courses i've played are in Texas so that plays into my perception of the style. and even though the style is clearly noticeable, i usually see the HouckDesign course map and tee signs long before that becomes evident.

all that said, i do believe i could guess a Houck course just based on the design and i've already done so in course-bagging trips. when you're bagging in Texas, it's almost a given that at least one of them will be one of his. i've had times that i noticed things that reminded me of him and then found out later and thought "i should have known!" and i've had times that i didn't know ahead of time but was certain mid-round.

 

[DavidSauls]

My retrospective reassessment of Stoney Hill is:

1. Why didn't someone tell me I would get older?
2.

 

[Monocacy]

My retrospective reassessment of Stoney Hill is:

1. Why didn't someone tell me I would get older?
2.

Heh. Sounds like time to add a par 3 course at Stoney Hill. Maybe a 9-hole putter course, too.

 

[DavidSauls]

Heh. Sounds like time to add a par 3 course at Stoney Hill. Maybe a 9-hole putter course, too.

And flatten some of these $#%!% hills, too.

*

I've often said that my toughest disc golf opponent is the ghost of my former self.

Every time I think about "short tees", that same ghost taunts me.

 

[Riverdog]

Plenty of flaws, but I think most people tend to subsribe to the "If you don't have something nice to say..." sense of decorum, unless they are reviewing the course.

Horse****e Rich. They're saying nice stuff because there's a metric ton of nice stuff to say about Sugaree!!!! True dat. [emoji41][emoji41][emoji41]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wolfhaley]

Plenty of flaws, but I think most people tend to subsribe to the "If you don't have something nice to say..." sense of decorum, unless they are reviewing the course.

I get the feeling that when I play it I'm only going to have glowing praise for it. Plus I can't review it because it's extinct on here and I don't mess around with Udisc reviewing. There's a couple of well traveled, well trusted guys on here who consider it the best of the best. You had to have done something right. :thmbup:

 

[wolfhaley]

And flatten some of these $#%!% hills, too.

*

I've often said that my toughest disc golf opponent is the ghost of my former self.

Every time I think about "short tees", that same ghost taunts me.

Flatten them by 2023 please. It's a bit far off but that's the plan as of right now.

 

[DavidSauls]

Flatten them by 2023 please. It's a bit far off but that's the plan as of right now.

You're taking quite a gamble. The course has grown over the years -- the 18th hole wasn't enough to stop us from designing and building more, something we may share with Rich -- and there's no guarantee that we'll stop now with #36.

 

[cox3]

Thinking a lot about what I would have done differently if I decided to have a disc golf course installed today, rather than what I did in 2008.
#1 Hire a top notch course designer. Either Chuck Kennedy or John Houck.
#2 Limit the design to 18 holes.
#3 Concrete pads instead of the constant maintenance involved in cheaper options.

It's funny you made this post. When I played it in July, my thoughts were "if an elite designer took what was already here and changed/combined/eliminated holes to make an 18 hole layout that didn't cross itself at any point and high quality concrete tees were installed and top of the line baskets were installed this would be on the very, very short list for best course in the world". The aesthetics and physical features are world class. Many of the shots are great too. Some are great on their own. Many of the par 3's would be fabulous as the approach shot or tee shot of a par 4/5. Many of the basket and tee locations are outstanding but the other part could be improved with slight adjusting.

I say none of this as a negative. It's wonderful just the way it is. I have these thoughts on every course I play. Very rarely do I ever have these thoughts where I conclude that the perfected product could be better than anywhere else I've seen though.

 

[Mando]

It's funny you made this post. When I played it in July, my thoughts were "if an elite designer took what was already here and changed/combined/eliminated holes to make an 18 hole layout that didn't cross itself at any point and high quality concrete tees were installed and top of the line baskets were installed this would be on the very, very short list for best course in the world". The aesthetics and physical features are world class. Many of the shots are great too. Some are great on their own. Many of the par 3's would be fabulous as the approach shot or tee shot of a par 4/5. Many of the basket and tee locations are outstanding but the other part could be improved with slight adjusting.

I say none of this as a negative. It's wonderful just the way it is. I have these thoughts on every course I play. Very rarely do I ever have these thoughts where I conclude that the perfected product could be better than anywhere else I've seen though.

It's funny that you responded, because you were probably the catalyst for this train of thought. I actually did a good bit of tinkering over the years, combining holes temporarily, 2+3,8+9,10+11,12+13,14+15,19+20 and 22+23. The only one that stuck was 8/9, but I split hole 1 into two holes, so it was pretty much a wash. For the most part, I did not feel the lengthening holes into par 5's would improve the experience for the average visitor.
Does it make sense to design a course for a pro level player, when most folks are in the rec-int skill level ?

 

[DavidSauls]

Does it make sense to design a course for a pro level player, when most folks are in the rec-int skill level ?

That may depend on the goals for that particular course.

If the goal is to maximize attendance and revenue, probably not. If the course is remote and requires travel, you'd have to ask whether the Recs, who populate local course, travel as much as the Advanced players. It's also possible that players like to play courses over their level more than under their level, so that up to a point, a course designed for Advanced players may also draw lots of Recs, whereas a course designed for Recs won't draw as many Advanced. Particularly if travel is involved. Though a course designed for Pros might be beyond that break point for the Recs.

But I have no idea; just speculation.

We designed our course, not for maximizing attendance, but to be the sort of course we loved to play most. We're our #1 audience. Everyone else can enjoy it, or not.

 

[chris deitzel]

Sid and I have a lot of ideas how Sugaree could become a destination course. I mean, it's probably the most fun course I've ever played, and has it all. It isn't cart friendly and that is an issue with 31 holes....

It truly is a remarkable place that needs a few tweaks to start getting a lot of traffic. If that's what you want??

 

[cox3]

It's funny that you responded, because you were probably the catalyst for this train of thought. I actually did a good bit of tinkering over the years, combining holes temporarily, 2+3,8+9,10+11,12+13,14+15,19+20 and 22+23. The only one that stuck was 8/9, but I split hole 1 into two holes, so it was pretty much a wash. For the most part, I did not feel the lengthening holes into par 5's would improve the experience for the average visitor.
Does it make sense to design a course for a pro level player, when most folks are in the rec-int skill level ?

Forgive me, I don't remember all of the hole numbers, especially with how many different holes and configurations there are-- I played them all though. As soon as I finished the second hole, I began thinking "wow, teeing from that first tee to this second basket would be an amazing par 4!". The first tee shot is awesome because of the platform and the elevation but the hole is simply too easy to be challenging in its current form. The second hole has one of the more incredible basket locations you'll ever see-- but I think it would be cool to have to approach that basket from many different distances and angles rather than the same exact tee location every time. Additionally, this would really enhance the uphill effect of the 1st tee shot because you would be trying to get as much distance and as much left as possible because you definitely want to be as close as possible to approach the 2nd basket. I had a lot of these types of thoughts throughout.

To answer your second question, I believe if any course designer/owner wants their course to be considered world class the longest/hardest layout needs to challenge every player on the planet. Once that 18 layout is established shorter tee placements (and possibly even short basket locations in some places-- NOT SHORT PINS... there's a difference... multiple baskets can be played all the time... multiple pins cannot) can be added to make a layout that is challenging for every player regardless of their skill level. In my opinion, this is the only way to achieve a perfect course design. If any skill level doesn't have a layout available that is appropriate for them, the course is inherently only going to be attractive to certain groups of players. I would venture to say that most reviews come from MA3 type players. That is why there are many relatively easy courses with very high ratings. You probably wouldn't see these same courses on most pros' lists of top courses either though. There are some wonderful pro courses that have relatively low ratings simply because they are too hard and frustrating for the average player. And this doesn't even really account for MA4/beginner players who probably aren't rating courses at all... Although that is more of an issue for city park type courses. I don't think anyone is coming to play your course until they have some level of experience and/or skill.

 

[aredoubles]

...As soon as I finished the second hole, I began thinking "wow, teeing from that first tee to this second basket would be an amazing par 4!". The first tee shot is awesome because of the platform and the elevation but the hole is simply too easy to be challenging in its current form. The second hole has one of the more incredible basket locations you'll ever see-- but I think it would be cool to have to approach that basket from many different distances and angles rather than the same exact tee location every time. Additionally, this would really enhance the uphill effect of the 1st tee shot because you would be trying to get as much distance and as much left as possible because you definitely want to be as close as possible to approach the 2nd basket. I had a lot of these types of thoughts throughout.

We played holes 1+1A combined in a recent tournament there, which I'm guessing is the basket location you're talking about, perched on a rock above the path. It averaged a score over 5, even for MPO. Getting to the ideal landing zone from the tee shot was exceptionally difficult, and anything short/outside of that landing zone then dealt with an uphill tunnel approach that was tough to navigate. I think only one person in the entire tournament got a birdie 3. You can explore the scoring stats here, and swap between divisions using the dropdown - https://www.pdga.com/apps/tournament/live/event?eventId=48941&division=MPO&view=Stats&round=2

 

[cox3]

We played holes 1+1A combined in a recent tournament there, which I'm guessing is the basket location you're talking about, perched on a rock above the path. It averaged a score over 5, even for MPO. Getting to the ideal landing zone from the tee shot was exceptionally difficult, and anything short/outside of that landing zone then dealt with an uphill tunnel approach that was tough to navigate. I think only one person in the entire tournament got a birdie 3. You can explore the scoring stats here, and swap between divisions using the dropdown - https://www.pdga.com/apps/tournament/live/event?eventId=48941&division=MPO&view=Stats&round=2

Gotcha. I could see that. Maybe the 1st tee could be moved up the hill 50 feet or so to create the right scoring opportunity. Maybe that area is better as 2 holes but with a different basket location for the 1st one. I don't know. Those types of things could easily be determined.