What makes a great disc golf course ?

[DavidSauls]

Bucksnort doesn't seem to require distance to please it's fans, either. It apparently has a landscape unique enough to make up for it.

[Cgkdisc]

In the art world, the size of the painting doesn't matter. Otherwise, wall murals might be the only paintings that could be considered great. The simple NIKE logo might be one of the greatest commercial artworks ever.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program of greatness discussion.

[Cgkdisc]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

The challenge for a shorter course is being all par-3s. Par-4s (and -5s) can add the variety of fairway shots that are different every time you play. Not essential, but that all-par-3 course is going to have to have something exceptional to make up for it.

This highlights the myopia of our DGCR cognoscenti. A 5000 ft course has mostly true par 4s, 5s and 6s, some with very few or no par 3s for players under 800 rating which includes many women, older players and kids. They can have significant multi-shot diversity every round on a well-designed course but many times the layout doesn't provide those interesting, shorter thrower, landing areas. You can play it with Super Class and have a similarly great multi-shot experience as they do. Point being, why can't this well designed course that challenges a different subset of players be considered great on its own merits?

[Casey 1988]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

The problem is this site is internally self congratulatory. Highly rated courses are great for those who play them and rate them. And that's fine for the target audience on this site. And of course this thread only contains comments from players on this site (duh). The problem is those who don't like courses where they lose discs are less likely to either rate the courses or rate them low perhaps because they may not want to seem like wimps, poor players or not financially in a good position to afford the loss. I suspect there are many rec players who have silently voted against courses with water losses simply by never going back to play where that occurs.

However, we know how much players hate to lose discs in whatever manner based on the number of lost disc posts, people going out swimming and stomping around to search, and people putting their number on the discs and good samaritans trying to return them. I haven't played ball golf in awhile but I don't recall hearing of an active community for finding and returning someone's golf ball. Of course, if you were required to forfeit your club to the pro shop each time you hit a ball in the drink, you would very quickly see ball golf courses with water hazards "dry up" faster than they are now.

I like to see water on courses, just not positioned aggressively if loss is likely, especially for rec players, even those who try the long tees. There should be a route they can take to avoid the water or at least cross a corner less than 50-60 feet across. Clear, shallow water, creek beds can be ideal as long as players can get to their discs. I look for those options during design but they're not as common as muddy, deeper creeks, some with steep banks.

I think if you go through the 100+ courses I've put in, many which have a 3.5+ rating here, you won't find any where there's a forced crossing where players either can't go around, can't play up to it and have a short carry across on the next throw, doesn't have a forward tee or drop zone you can proceed to and not throw across (Steady Ed - IDGC) or doesn't have water very close behind the pin. I've always been designing in ways where I hope every player wants to come back and play my layouts, especially those for their skill level, as if the financial survival of the course depended on it, even though very few do because there's little expectation of commercial viability in our sport (except in Maine mostly). If a player loses a disc for some reason, I'm hoping it's because of a riskier choice they made and not one I "forced" them to make.

So it's okay to have "water in play," but as a designer, please position it so the thrower optionally decides to take the risk of going in rather than the designer forcing a high risk loss beyond the skill level of even or highest level players who, as we've seen, cannot consistently avoid water penalties on tour courses. If they can't do it, why would you expect lower skilled players to reasonably do better?

you bold I like to see that too like an option to not play the entire water that the top amateur or Open Pro level player could do, or not as big as Pro level water distance but in such a way that one can take the layup if needed. I am not that big a thrower at 270-275 feet max with 280 feet being a good day.

[Casey 1988]

Soemthing I do not want to see is the wall of foliage in the wild woods type of golf, I would rather see tight tunnels/gaps then the Wall of foliage. Lake Richmond state park near Aberdeen South Dakota is a good example of this, it was a tight tunnel until the guy doing the work died so the State Park then did not allow others outside the park people to do the mantiance work. All you had to do was sign the legal sheets made in 2000's that said no suing for injury or even rare event of death but the parks people were either too afraid to do so or too lazy, the older guy was grandfathered in from late 1990's.

[dreadlock86]

i really appreciate that a lot of the best designers out there respond to the question "what makes a great course?" with "great for who?"

it would be nice to see a more consistent standard for labeling tees and courses overall with respect to gold, blue, white, red, etc. of course there are a lot of issues there but if we could get closer to that then it would be easier to say "course X is a great white-level course" and that would mean something.

i think we're still in a place where a lot of new designs haven't really decided what level course they are supposed to be. it might be because of what's available on the land or an inexperienced designer or disagreement among multiple parties involved or whatever. you're not going to please everyone all the time but what are the best compromises?

should we expect a designer to choose a tee that makes for a less exciting hole but closer adheres to the target level of the course?
for an area with no courses, should the first course be a red course? that makes sense but maybe the locals feel differently
for areas with lots of courses, should some of them be redesigned to adhere to a specific level?
is it within the purview of the PDGA to make a guideline of suggestions for course development aimed at cities and parks departments? does that exist and i don't realize? if so, could it be revised to be more helpful and have more rigor? would it help?

[R-Ogre]

My favorite courses stand out not because of length of holes, variety of shot, etc. but by the way the showcase and use the natural biome. Some of my all time faves in no order:

Prickly Pines in Elizabeth, CO. You’re playing through a scrubby pine forest in sort of foothilly terrain. Gorgeous course.

Papago Park in Phoenix, AZ. It’s just a blast throwing around big ol saguaro cacti at baskets tucked in palo verde trees.

Aant’iyeik Park (current home course) Juneau, AK. The epitome of coastal rainforest golf-playing through the woods of 100’+ old growth spruce trees up and down steep slopes. Usually 40° and raining. Beautiful views of mountains and ocean from the 3 open holes on a nice day.

Etc.

None of these courses except Prickly Pines would rate as a “good” course by demanding DGCR standards (probably too easy for 900+ rated players or navigation/safety issues etc) but to me the seeing the best nature an area has to offer is super important.

But that’s just me and I kind of suck at this game so take from it what you will.

[rhatton1]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Water hazards with forced (not optional) carries where your disc is likely unretrievable/lost make no sense for a course trying to appeal to a broader public and on pay-to-play courses trying to breakeven. At minimum, there should be should be tees that skirt or avoid the water. Change my mind.

I wouldn't have thought anyone would try to change your mind. Part of being a great course IMO is having multiple options to play and different layouts appealing to different levels of player. However to have water on the course and not use it as a risk/reward feature on at least one layout would be a huge shame. That delicious/hateful fear of throwing across/alongside water is one of the things that brings competitive people back over and over again, we want to be the masters of the course. We want to beat that water.

[mojorooks]

Here is a hole that some might LOVE. Personally I choose to skip it. I see nothing wrong with one out of 18 being 'a skipper' like that but anymore and I would avoid the course.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/cours...e74ca9ab_m.jpg


This one, however I like and will play. The pond is smaller, maybe 150 ft across. And a little error one way or the other and the disc just goes off to the side, not in the water. This water is shallower too so easy to wade after discs.

https://m.discgolfscene.com/courses/...6b8173ae25.jpg

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

This highlights the myopia of our DGCR cognoscenti. A 5000 ft course has mostly true par 4s, 5s and 6s, some with very few or no par 3s for players under 800 rating which includes many women, older players and kids. They can have significant multi-shot diversity every round on a well-designed course but many times the layout doesn't provide those interesting, shorter thrower, landing areas. You can play it with Super Class and have a similarly great multi-shot experience as they do. Point being, why can't this well designed course that challenges a different subset of players be considered great on its own merits?

While we're at it, let's label all 8000 courses "Great" and avoid the debate. Because I'll bet that every course has somebody who thinks it's great. Sure, most of those somebodies have only played a handful of courses for perspective, but they know their course is great.

Any of those courses drawing sub-800s from far away, in any noticeable numbers?