Go Back   Disc Golf Course Review > General Disc Golf Discussions > General Disc Golf Chat

View Poll Results: Which of these best describes Hole 18 at the Utah Open?
A par 2 where 38% of throws are errors, and 1% of throws are hero throws. 6 25.00%
A par 3 where 24% of throws are errors, and 33% of throws are hero throws. 16 66.67%
A par 4 where 16% of throws are hero throws, and 23% are double heroes. 1 4.17%
A par 5 where 37% of throws are hero throws, and 21% are double heroes. 0 0%
A par 6 where 16% of throws are hero throws, and 62% are double heroes. 1 4.17%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #3461  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:58 AM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 23.6
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 5,931
Niced 963 Times in 452 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Two come to mind. They are holes that play well, are cool and fun to play, and we were arguing about the par to begin with. The best data we had was the open division and, after seeing their scores over a few years, I relented to setting the higher par. I still whine about it, and am surprised that the holes score as high as they do. If I was sole owner, I might have left them as originally set.

But that's being fairly casual about par because, as I said, we're not hosting elite-level events or a lot of 1000-rated players. For the past few years we haven't held singles tournaments, so it matters even less.
Since it is only a couple would you mind giving a physical description of the holes? (distance/elevation/forced layups/tightness)
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #3462  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:53 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.6
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,408
Niced 2,239 Times in 1,062 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscoe View Post
Since it is only a couple would you mind giving a physical description of the holes? (distance/elevation/forced layups/tightness)
Diamond 6

629', double dogleg, gentle elevation gain (mostly off the tee, and approaching the green)
Fairway about 25' wide for the first 150', then maybe 40' the rest of the way.
Lined by dense woods.

Drive to landing area, gentle dogleg right, throw to landing area, gentle dogleg left, throw slightly uphill to basket, guarded by 2 small trees, about 25' short and to either side of a straight path so you can't safely hyzer in. In the middle of the second segment is a tree, too far to hit with a drive, but it offers two narrower windows and forces you to decide which to take on your second shot.

I argued that all you have to do is restrain yourself, throw 240' straight and hit the mark, 200' straight, 200' straight, and drop it in. Add a little for the elevation. But it's reasonable; even I've done it before.

But the temptation's there to get around the corner off the tee, and to get around the corner for a second shot, and nail that elusive "3". Which is beyond my ability, but others do manage from time to time.

But over several years of tournaments, the open division never averaged better than 4.6. And it wasn't a bunch of 7s and 8s and OB that inflated that average; it was equal or slightly more 5s than 4s.

Steve would attribute it to errors. But it seems that there's just enough trouble along the way to accumulate on a long hole, or to cause players to be extremely cautious, because if they miss the woods are dense enough to cost a stroke or two.

I called it a "tough 4", yielding a few birdies and lots of bogeys. We changed it to a 5.

Garnet 15

490'
Dogleg right, tee shot slightly uphill, big elevation from landing zone to basket.

The drive is across a pond, 210-240' to clear water (the shorter distance means a longer second throw), with the shore rising 5-10' to the ideal landing area. Which is around the corner, to the right. Cut it too tight, and there are tall trees and an extension of the pond. Cut it too left, there are dense woods. But there's a better chance for a 3 if you get around the corner, and keep it in the fairway; if you just drive straight, you can land safe but leave a big throw for the next one.

The second leg is up a steep hill, with dense woods on either side. In the center of this fairway are two tall trees, in a line along the line of play and about 60' apart, which force you to choose a side or, sometimes, to slalom between them. Basket's on the slope; rollaways aren't a big concern but if you don't quite reach it, it's a steep uphill putt.

It started as a "Tough 3". An unbirdieable 3, which I'm comfortable with. Good drive, good upshot, putt. Except that the 3s were, apparently, tougher than I thought.

*

Now, I suspect that if we had an event where the open division averaged close to 1000 rating, or we had enough high-rated players to select out a significant group that averaged 1000, they'd beat those numbers. We've had some, but not enough. So don't really have a reason to set par accurately for them, nor results to judge whether we did. And, like many designers, we haven't been around them enough to really know what to expect.

I'll also footnote that one of the design philosophies I've quoted to visitors is, "We like tempting people to do something foolish". Which these holes demonstrate.

Steve is defining errors as something like throws that cost a stroke. I understand that. I see the line as much fuzzier; the throw that isn't perfect, and might cost a stroke 20% of the time. Is that an error? Do it once, and it probably won't cost a stroke. Do it multiple times on a long hole, and it might. And that's what we find on a number of holes out here.

P.S. if you go through our course photos to look at those holes---which I can't imagine you would do---the hole numbers are out of sync. This is the result of trying to squeeze 2 overlapping layouts into a website note designed for it, and a recent re-numbering. Ignore the DGCR hole numbers, and read the descriptions. Diamond 6 is described as "Hole 6". Quartz 15 is described as "17A (Quartz)".
Reply With Quote
  #3463  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:07 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.6
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,408
Niced 2,239 Times in 1,062 Posts
Default

Sorry for the essay. I can be concise when discussion hole design, in general. Caveat about asking me about hole design at Stoney Hill.
Reply With Quote
  #3464  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:55 AM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 23.6
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 5,931
Niced 963 Times in 452 Posts
Default

Sounds like a 5 and a 4 to me.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #3465  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:02 AM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 23.6
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 5,931
Niced 963 Times in 452 Posts
Default

Looking at the pics I can see Hole 6 conceptually as a difficult Par 4. 17 is a par 4 all the way.
Reply With Quote
 

  #3466  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:06 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.6
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,408
Niced 2,239 Times in 1,062 Posts
Default

On the bright side---within the parameters we're using, which is the entire open division at our events---only once have the results indicated that one of our Par 3s should clearly be a Par 2.

Though I imagine there'd be a bunch of them if we had a 1000-rated field.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Par 4s - multiple in a row or sprinkle par 3s into them? ToddL Course Design 9 02-23-2018 10:47 AM
Poorly designed par 4,5,and par 6 holes and bad high par courses optidiscic Course Design 159 09-12-2014 11:53 AM
Cgkdisc and jeverett talk about par Steve West Course Design 53 05-05-2012 09:37 AM
Deuce or die par 3's or play for par, par 3's? BrotherDave Disc Golf Courses 14 04-29-2011 01:04 AM
Par and Pro Par for multiple tees with different pars? marcusmpe General Disc Golf Chat 6 04-26-2010 07:13 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.