#11  
Old 05-01-2017, 01:32 PM
Karl Karl is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 787
Niced 75 Times in 47 Posts
Default

In a perfect world there would be enough land to provide enough courses so that there would only be need for 1T that leads to 1B. Play it, get a score, compare with your buddies (or your score of yesterday, etc.), and go to the next hole. Repeat. BUT there is NOT enough land to have THAT many courses and because we like diversity (call it the ADA of dg'ers coming through big time) designers try 'different things' to offset such - and you come up with the variations mentioned by the OP.
But something which has come up in threads in past years (is appropriate to this web site and one of the reasons that I refuse to 'rate' a course) is the question "What is a 'course'?"

IMO some courses get the benefit of being constructed a certain way (multiple Ts and Bs, etc.) to their advantage to "obtain a higher rating" but are those types one course or multiple courses?

How much of 1 layout needs to be separate from another layout to be a separate course? Or vice versa? And all iterations of such. If you think about it, there are MANY versions of such...and one could ask the "what IS a course?" Q about all of them.

Oddball, but valid, scenario:
#1 You have an 18 hole layout with 1T and 1B per hole. And everyone of them is super.
#2 You also have a 'thing' which has 46Ts and 37Bs juxtaposed over 4 layouts of both similar and crossing fairways, each with 18 'holes' listed on their scorecards. Some combinations are super, most are good, some are 'meh'.

Which scenario is better? Of course the answer depends on personal preference.
My point is that the first is a classic case of "1 course with 1 layout"...and you guys can 'rate' it all you want, but what is the second?

I would argue that the first is better for a big tournament / challenge as when you actually play it for a round, you are subjected to all of its toughness and no fluff; when you play the second, any one 'layout' will be less than the first scenario.

But a LOT of players would argue that #2 is 'better' (more diversity, etc.) - even though they get fluff on even the hardest layout of #2.

Maybe this site will morph into a "dglayoutreview"

Something to ponder....
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-01-2017, 03:30 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.4
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,242
Niced 2,058 Times in 981 Posts
Default

Wait until you own one of those Example #2s, and try to wedge all those combinations into the hole information on this website.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-01-2017, 04:20 PM
biscoe biscoe is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 23.5
Courses Played: 94
Posts: 5,844
Niced 889 Times in 417 Posts
Default

... or have 3 partial courses on a site in various stages of completion where you actually have 5 playable 18 hole layouts patched together ala Frankenstein...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-01-2017, 05:48 PM
Gblambert Gblambert is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Marcos, Texas
Years Playing: 5.6
Courses Played: 23
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 206
Niced 42 Times in 26 Posts
Default

My course has three tees on every hole, which in our case works really well. I play with my son and his girlfriend a lot and our skill levels vary from newbie to noodle arm geezer (me) to advanced (my son). With three tees, my son plays the blues, I play the whites, and his girlfriend plays the reds. We all have fun because we're playing holes designed for our skill levels.

During tournaments, pros play the blues, ams play the whites, and juniors the reds. The red tees are also fun for ace run, par 2 type mini tournaments.

The key, imho, is to design each tee so that it matches the skill level it's intended for while providing an adequate challenge and a fun throw. I don't care for holes where the tee pads are laid like dominoes down the middle of the fairway. When possible, additional tee pads should be tucked off to the side, but in spots where they can be seen from the other tee pads. Most of the time this can be done with some careful pruning. If you're lucky, the locations for additional tee pads can be just as challenging as the long tees if there's elevation or some well placed trees to work with.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-01-2017, 07:49 PM
Karl Karl is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 787
Niced 75 Times in 47 Posts
Default

Ps to my 12:32 pm post earlier...
#1 is whatever course you think is "the cat's meow"
#2 is none other than the very, VERY highly regarded (but dangerous in a few spots as alluded to by previously posters) Maple Hill.
Not 'Maple Hill Gold' which has 3 other configurations overlayed (somewhat / sometimes) on it, but 'Maple Hill'...whatever that means (as a course / layout / configuration / etc.).
See my point now?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-01-2017, 08:07 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.4
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,242
Niced 2,058 Times in 981 Posts
Default

Probably varies from course to course. I haven't played Maple Hill.....though you're clearly right about it being highly regarded.

I'm co-owner of a private course with multiple overlapping layouts. But we rarely have enough players to have any safety or conflict issues, and of course at tournaments we only use one layout per round. We didn't build it this way to boost ratings---we did it because we keep finding cool holes (at least, to our taste), and want to play them.

We consider it one course, and list it as such, but as I said earlier, it's tricky fitting it into this website, which presumes a more standard arrangement.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-03-2017, 09:23 PM
tallpaul's Avatar
tallpaul tallpaul is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Appleton, Wisconsin
Years Playing: 30.5
Courses Played: 901
Posts: 2,616
Niced 60 Times in 36 Posts
Default

The owner at Rollin' Ridge was originally hesitant to install multiple permanent basket positions, for the reasons cited (in addition to wondering if player's would "get it"). ...3 tees and three permanent baskets on most holes; though a few only have two tees at present...

However, it's worked like a dream; and a big draw is that it accommodates a large variety of skill sets...and/or allows one to play skill set desired for a particular day. It has worked fantastically at the Ridge. A small disclaimer would perhaps be that with it being a private course; and pay to play (albeit only $5); player's tend to play with a degree of respect for each other.

There are not many places where one would be unaware someone was on a different tee; same hole.

Like anything, the execution of the whole probably makes a big difference. There are a lot of subtle design items within' the Ridge complex, that make it function well.

*Having reread the original post; the Ridge is only listed as one course. I was addressing feasibility of multiple set ups within one course; not "how it's listed."*
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-25-2017, 06:43 AM
Billipo Billipo is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Courses Played: 54
Posts: 171
Niced 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I never understood the resistance to multiple permanent pins on a hole when multiple tees are so common an accepted.

I think a two tee, two pin senerio would be awesome if used to accommodate player skill levels. Tees create distance, pins create short game challenge.

It is much easier to create added difficulty while conserving course space with a second pin placement then just adding a longer tee. Yet it is seldom seen.

I think key is color coding baskets.

One of my designs has a few holes with multiple permanent pins. Works this way.... single target (standard target), multiple targets then short is orange and long is blue.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-25-2017, 08:02 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.4
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,242
Niced 2,058 Times in 981 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Probably varies from course to course. I haven't played Maple Hill.....though you're clearly right about it being highly regarded.

I'm co-owner of a private course with multiple overlapping layouts. But we rarely have enough players to have any safety or conflict issues, and of course at tournaments we only use one layout per round. We didn't build it this way to boost ratings---we did it because we keep finding cool holes (at least, to our taste), and want to play them.

We consider it one course, and list it as such, but as I said earlier, it's tricky fitting it into this website, which presumes a more standard arrangement.
An anecdotal footnote.

The numbers on Stoney Hill are: 2 18-hole overlapping layouts, 32 holes (4 shared on both layouts), 28 baskets (4 shared on both layouts, approached from different directions), 3 shared tees (same tee to different baskets). Plus 3 hybrid layouts, 24 or 27 holes, with segments of the 2 main layouts.

And so lightly played that we might go months without having 2 groups on the property at the same time. While at tournament time, we bag, rope off, or move baskets to avoid any confusion.

So two days ago there were 2 groups, playing 27 holes and starting an hour apart. And we ended up throwing to the same basket, from different directions, the same time.

Then yesterday, there were 2 individuals playing---one playing his 23rd hole, one playing his 1st---throwing to the same basket at the same time.

Which is a reminder that designers need to account for and plan for worst-case scenarios---traffic flows, bad shots, and the rest. In our case, it doesn't really matter---such conflicts happen so seldom that we'll live with them, for the benefits. But a similar layout on a course that's even just fairly lightly used might be questionable.

As well as a reminder that there is no one answer.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #20  
Old 12-26-2017, 09:32 AM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 20.9
Courses Played: 143
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 6,718
Niced 2,022 Times in 862 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billipo View Post
I never understood the resistance to multiple permanent pins on a hole when multiple tees are so common an accepted.

I think a two tee, two pin senerio would be awesome if used to accommodate player skill levels. Tees create distance, pins create short game challenge.

It is much easier to create added difficulty while conserving course space with a second pin placement then just adding a longer tee. Yet it is seldom seen.

I think key is color coding baskets.

One of my designs has a few holes with multiple permanent pins. Works this way.... single target (standard target), multiple targets then short is orange and long is blue.
As with anything, the general concept isn't necessarily objectionable. It depends entirely on execution. Courses with a two tee, two permanent basket set-up can work well if designed thoughtfully AND everyone playing is aware of the multiple set-ups and understands how they work. That's the troublesome part though...even with a good design, players are a wildcard.

But even independent of execution, the biggest reason that more courses go the multiple tee, one target route rather than multiple targets is cost. Whether it's rubber, concrete, or natural, tees can be installed for no more than about a third of the cost of a quality target. And when you're talking parks that have concrete readily available to them (and perhaps cheaper than retail) but not targets, that carries the day.
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.