What makes a great disc golf course ?

[Gblambert]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

How else would you define a "Great Course"? UDisc produces similar ratings to this site, with a somewhat different clientele.

Yes. How do you define a great course and who gets to decide which courses are the great ones?

DGCR followers and reviewers are students of the game, course designers and players who have lots of disc golf experience and have played lots of courses. This thread alone shows that. The DGCR reviews are similarly very thoughtful and insightful.

UDisc reviews, on the other hand, seem to be based more on a gut feeling. Players use UDisc to find courses and layouts, so after playing a round they give it a quick number rating. The few reviews with comments are usually only a line or two.

Using one of my courses as an example, the difference between the two is like night and day. While it has only 9 reviews and a better than average rating on DGCR, on UDisc it has 360 reviews and has the highest rating of any course in the area. Those 360 viewers think it's a great course, yet it has no par 4's, no elevation, no water, nor most of the other requirements for a great course mentioned in this thread (and that I agree with).

What I take from this is that the vast majority of disc golfers are weekend warriors with a different idea about what makes a great course. For them it's not only about the course, it's also about the playing experience and how much fun they had while playing.

[Cgkdisc]

Originally Posted by rhatton1

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.

Suggest adding a permanent second basket and/or tee on water proximity holes where rec players can choose the riskier routing or designing temp tee/pin locations in the routing only set up for leagues/tournaments where players expect to be tortu... er, tested. I didn't get a chance to implement this at Highbridge but I designed a 6-hole "water" loop that players could optionally add to their routing from three of the courses with tricky shots involving water on each hole. This way, players could choose to play risky layouts when they were up for it. I suspect it would have been a popular novelty for a segment of tournament players but likely not the broader set of recreational players who visit, except maybe trying it once.

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by Gblambert

Yes. How do you define a great course and who gets to decide which courses are the great ones?

DGCR followers and reviewers are students of the game, course designers and players who have lots of disc golf experience and have played lots of courses. This thread alone shows that. The DGCR reviews are similarly very thoughtful and insightful.

UDisc reviews, on the other hand, seem to be based more on a gut feeling. Players use UDisc to find courses and layouts, so after playing a round they give it a quick number rating. The few reviews with comments are usually only a line or two.

Using one of my courses as an example, the difference between the two is like night and day. While it has only 9 reviews and a better than average rating on DGCR, on UDisc it has 360 reviews and has the highest rating of any course in the area. Those 360 viewers think it's a great course, yet it has no par 4's, no elevation, no water, nor most of the other requirements for a great course mentioned in this thread (and that I agree with).

What I take from this is that the vast majority of disc golfers are weekend warriors with a different idea about what makes a great course. For them it's not only about the course, it's also about the playing experience and how much fun they had while playing.

Interesting. Around here, the ratings are similar.

I'm not taking DGCR as gospel. Either would be a justifiable definition of "Great Course". And I'm sure there are others. You could use, say, an impression of how courses are described or recommended in Reddit posts, which certainly draws a different audience than DGCR.

But I wouldn't dismiss the DGCR definition, either.

Since this is a DGCR discussion of what DGCR users consider makes a great course, I'd give some weight to what DGCR users think is a great course.

[Steve West]

"Great" is not the same as "favorite" (especially not some kind of qualified favorite like local favorite, favorite for beginners, etc.).

[Darkgreen]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Water for aesthetics only but not in play for lost discs.

I completely agree with this.

[R-Ogre]

Originally Posted by Gblambert

What I take from this is that the vast majority of disc golfers are weekend warriors with a different idea about what makes a great course. For them it's not only about the course, it's also about the playing experience and how much fun they had while playing.

Is this a revelation to anyone?

[Dan Cooper]

In an ideal world, a little of everything....open holes, wooded holes, elevation changes, some flat terrain, a scenic signature hole, and a water hazard hole.

[BogeyNoMore]

Originally Posted by mojorooks

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/cours...e74ca9ab_m.jpg
[IMG]
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/6298/e74ca9ab_m.jpg[/IMG]

Not sure what course this is from and doesn't look like a hole life ever played, but I think this might be a really fun hole. I don't know how accurate the sign is but, it looks like there's a designated landing spot, at about 200 to 250 ft... a distance the vast majority of most players can reach, leaving another shot makeable by most to set up a putt.

Also looks like you can reduce the distance needed to carry if you go for a landing spot farther to the right (assuming it's reasonably playable and not nasty rough). Why is the region to the right OB? if possible I'd like to make it playable for shorter throwers.Leaves you a longer path to play along the outside of the water.

.. but players who can throw farther should be rewarded for being able to do so accurately.

Which leads me to the opportunity for players who can bit 400+ consistently having a decent look at a deuce (or even an Ace) from the tee.
If this hole doesn't play like I described above, I'd seriously consider what it would take to make it play that way.

[DavidSauls]

This'll get your blood pumping. Sorry for the poor quality.

Diamond 16.jpg

You can follow the line if you throw 300', accurately. Otherwise, there's one extra leg or the right side. And danger all the way.

Note: the road and beyond is OB.

[itsRudy]

Originally Posted by Jmorri67

Just like the title says, what are the must haves for a course to go from good to amazing for you?

It should have good terrain and make full use of it. So potential and execution.

I've been on courses with ho-hum terrain made good by fantastic execution but when fantastic terrain is married to bad execution, it's just a frustrating letdown. When both come together, it's great.

The third ingredient is maintenance. All the great courses around me have a club maintaining the 101 things that break down and go wrong. Ground keeper maintenance isn't enough and over time everything needs to be looked after. There's no one and done deal with setting up a course and never looking after it again. Actually, all the great courses I know weren't designed that way, they just evolved better and better over time. All the mediocre courses stagnate and never change.

The other major thing is tee pads that are too short and raised up (ankle breakers). Hate them. Rather have no pads at all. Tee signs and other such first timer stuff is great for newcomers but doesn't really do much for replay value, just icing on a cake.

A lot of other stuff is up to skill and player lever and preferences and is very individual.