Poorly designed par 4,5,and par 6 holes and bad high par courses

[optidiscic]

With the influx of higher par courses and the urge to gain validity many courses with higher par are being designed. This thread is meant to DISCUSS some flaws that are emerging on the frontier of course design. Ive played good n bad n avg longer or higher par courses and holes
often its a matter of taste but there are mistakes being made by designers

This is not a thread to promote par 3 golf or to criticize anything that isnt par 3

this is to raise awareness of some poor designs and mistakes being made out there

So lets discuss iyo what courses or holes or types of holes you think are mistakes

[bradharris]

One of my local courses is a par 62 (I think?). In it's first PDGA tournament this year, SSA came out somewhere around 50. But nobody shot that score.

The problem is that a lot of the par 4s are nice par 3s with a 100 ft putter shot added on. It's not a distance issue, it's all about how it's laid out.

For instance there's a par 4 that's 440' uphill. The tree lines keep the green out of play, even for those who may have the arm to get it there. There is a landing zone about 300' away, at the top of the hill. From there it's an easy 100'-150' putter shot. 2s never happen, 3s are easy, par is 4.

There's another hole on the same course that is in the opposite state. About 100' off the tee, it makes a hard right turn, then goes 300' down a narrow fairway. I've seen a tee shot reach the pin once. It was on a fluke shot that just happened to find it's way through a tight off the fairway gap.

Most of the time it's a boring dump shot with a putter or mid to get to the middle of the fairway, then a long mid or short fairway shot to reach the pin. Yawn.

Putting tees or pins at some of these landing areas instead of requiring an extra putter shot to reach them would make the course much, much more fun.

[1978]

There are the obvious, odd angle long tees that force a 150' shot with no chance to advance the fairway... there are a number of factors for this...lengthening a shorter course that was built around a shorter layout, lazyness, space.

But I want to talk about lazy course building and design. I'll try to think of specific holes but I have noticed that on many wooded par 4's the original designers did not spend enough time looking for natural lines in the woods. Then they built their course and par 4 and either because of rules. or labor don't cut enough trees out to make "fair"ways. I see a lot of par 4's and 5's littered wiith small OR large trees in the fairways. Par 3 holes are easily visioned and built and can be done within what ever tree cutting rules you have. Par 4's and 5's take more time in the design phase to find the best lines. Par 6? Gimmick, shouldnt even be discussed. Arent most of these 5,000' throws off mountains anyways?

[jrawk]

My opinion is that "Z" shaped double-dog legs and the 'horseshoe' shaped fairways are at the bottom of the fun barrel.

[Mando]

I thought many of the par 4's at French Creek needed wider fairways, but then again I'm not at the intended skill level. WR Jackson on the other hand (with the widest fairways I've ever seen) was a blast and one of my favorite courses. I'd like to hear about long holes that work along with what doesn't.

[Okie-J]

I think MOST par 4 and par 5 holes feel forced and basically suck.

[Mando]

Originally Posted by Okie-J

I think MOST par 4 and par 5 holes feel forced and basically suck.

I can't disagree with that statement. A good, well thought-out par 4 or 5 is much harder to construct that a great par 3.

[BionicRib]

Its all about the NAGS........which unfortunately is hard to change when you have some designers who have a different idea of what par is for certain skill levels. What we need is for everybody in the design world to have a "koombaya" moment and set a standard that EVERYBODY will follow. That way we can all stop this pissing and moaning about par.

We have to many chiefs and not enough Indians in disc golf design. And right now "experience and good references" is what makes them who they are. What we need is some form of curriculum or certification process......but again with all the chiefs I think it would be tough to get everyone on the same page.

Maybe one day though

[BionicRib]

The other problem is the fact that we don't have a lot of courses that offer 4 sets of tees (I can't think of any off the top of my head). If you have 4 or even 5 sets of tees then it is easier to design and appease the different skill levels. Most courses have 1 or 2 sets of tees now which does not appease all the skill levels and in turn sparks the debate amongst all the players. I'd also be willing to bet that there is a very small percentage of players/designers have a true understanding of Gold, Blue, White, Red skill levels (or even Black, Blue, white, red, yellow, and green).

Its a mess IMO

[Jukeshoe]

Could someone please explain the concept of "NAGS" or "not a golf shot" to the layman? I think it would be a great refresher for some of us that are less experienced in dg design.

TIA.