#321  
Old 12-21-2012, 01:56 AM
johnrhouck johnrhouck is offline
.:Master Course Designer:.
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Austin TX
Years Playing: 41.6
Posts: 534
Niced 21 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
In your most recent article in Disc Golfer, you mentioned places where a throw off the fairway leaves no room for a recovery shot, but forces the player to pitch out to the fairway. I've seen criticisms of the pitch out in other forums as well.

Admittedly, the pitch-out throw isn't usually much of a golf throw. Unless you throw as badly as I do and sometimes just reaching the fairway is a challenge. But it seems to me that these areas play much like O.B.---a serious hazard that you seriously want to avoid because of the extra stroke it will cost you. Other than the fact that it's harder to fly over, how much different is a fairway lined with dense rough that will require a pitchout from a fairway lined with O.B.?
That's a very important question, David.

As you mention, the flyover aspect can be critical. Imagine for example, that the USDGC course had tall trees everywhere instead of yellow rope -- it would play very differently. And you're right about the psychology of wanting to avoid a certain area.

We actually started to discuss this topic a little earlier in this thread. If you go back to October, mubhcaeb78 asked about his course, where going into the thick stuff can require multiple shots just to get back to the fairway. In that case, throwing into the rough can actually be worse than going OB -- an overly severe price to pay, in my opinion.

Probably the biggest difference between pitching out and OB, other than having to execute the pitch itself, is where your next lie is. Imagine, for example, that your drive heads into the woods short of a dogleg. In an OB situation, you might take a lie in the fairway and have to pitch up to the dogleg. Now you're lying three.

If there's no OB, you might be able to pitch "forward" a little and get around the corner. Now you're closer to the pin and lying 2. In that case, being in the woods costs substantially less than OB would have.

What I'm lobbying for in my article, for those you haven't read it, is a type of fairway that's not as black and white as "in the woods" or OB. Instead, there are a range of rewards and punishments, and players who just miss the fairway, instead of being completely screwed, have a chance to make a real recovery shot, not just a pitch out.

The fairway feature I describe in the article is called a PITTSBORO, which stands for Place Improving The Throwing Strategy By Offering Recovery Opportunities. Such features are not generally easy to create, but they can really enhance the playing experience, and I'm hoping that the state of the art in course design will now head that way.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 12-21-2012, 09:43 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 22.5
Courses Played: 124
Posts: 12,987
Niced 731 Times in 395 Posts
Default

Thanks. It was a good article. Generally speaking, the chance to make recovery shots, or screw them up, is more fun. I like them, in the same way I like par-4s & par-5s, because unlike tee shots and putts, each time you face one you're trying to figure out a unique shot you haven't thrown before.

My feeling is that the pitch-out rough is maligned a bit too much. When it borders a reasonable-width fairway, or especially when it runs along one side of the fairway, I'm okay with it.

I guess the worst is woods of just the right density that you may have a recovery shot, or may have to pitch out to the fairway, depending on the random luck of where the disc stopped.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 12-21-2012, 09:59 AM
sloppydisc's Avatar
sloppydisc sloppydisc is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Years Playing: 9
Courses Played: 201
Posts: 5,203
Niced 1 Time in 1 Post
Default It works!

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrhouck View Post
That's a very important question, David.

As you mention, the flyover aspect can be critical. Imagine for example, that the USDGC course had tall trees everywhere instead of yellow rope -- it would play very differently. And you're right about the psychology of wanting to avoid a certain area.

We actually started to discuss this topic a little earlier in this thread. If you go back to October, mubhcaeb78 asked about his course, where going into the thick stuff can require multiple shots just to get back to the fairway. In that case, throwing into the rough can actually be worse than going OB -- an overly severe price to pay, in my opinion.

Probably the biggest difference between pitching out and OB, other than having to execute the pitch itself, is where your next lie is. Imagine, for example, that your drive heads into the woods short of a dogleg. In an OB situation, you might take a lie in the fairway and have to pitch up to the dogleg. Now you're lying three.

If there's no OB, you might be able to pitch "forward" a little and get around the corner. Now you're closer to the pin and lying 2. In that case, being in the woods costs substantially less than OB would have.

What I'm lobbying for in my article, for those you haven't read it, is a type of fairway that's not as black and white as "in the woods" or OB. Instead, there are a range of rewards and punishments, and players who just miss the fairway, instead of being completely screwed, have a chance to make a real recovery shot, not just a pitch out.

The fairway feature I describe in the article is called a PITTSBORO, which stands for Place Improving The Throwing Strategy By Offering Recovery Opportunities. Such features are not generally easy to create, but they can really enhance the playing experience, and I'm hoping that the state of the art in course design will now head that way.
When I played the new and unfinished #1 at Rock Ridge my buddy ended up in one of the 'sandtraps' on the right. He was able to hit a tight line, and make a nice approach to the basket. If he was buried in the woods, he would never had made that shot. My only concern is the durability of that sand trap or others that aren't created with large trees. Some disc golfers may not tree saplings or medium sized trees nicely. We'll see.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 12-21-2012, 10:15 AM
Stan McDaniel's Avatar
Stan McDaniel Stan McDaniel is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Indian Trail N.C.
Courses Played: 13
Posts: 612
Niced 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

The way I play ball golf often requires a pitch out. Sometimes I am left with shot making opportunities but the pitch out is usually the only sane option. So, I have always had this comparison in my mind while designing. I do admit that I had never thought about the recovery route concept till I walked Pittsboro with John and listened to his philosophy and saw what he was trying to achieve. I wholeheartedly endorse John's idea of recovery routes. Even with recovery routes there will still be pitchouts. The thrower will still have to keep the shot pretty close to the fairway to have a chance to use the recovery routes. The recovery route is kind of like being in the furst cut of rough where you still have a chance to strike the ball and also havea reasonable path to the green. If your throw goes a bit too far to use the recovery route you will likely be faced with some form of a pitchout. (sometimes called a thumber)

The only downside that I see is the amount of extra work required to create these. Most of the wooded courses we have built here in Charlotte take at least 1500 manhours of volunteer labor. I may be wrong, but I would imagine that building the recovery routes takes nearly 30% to 50% extra work on a hole for clearing and dragging. This would take the manhours required to build a wooded course from 1500 to somewhere from 1900 to 2300 manhours. That is just a guess.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 12-21-2012, 10:20 AM
johnrhouck johnrhouck is offline
.:Master Course Designer:.
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Austin TX
Years Playing: 41.6
Posts: 534
Niced 21 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sloppydisc View Post
When I played the new and unfinished #1 at Rock Ridge my buddy ended up in one of the 'sandtraps' on the right. He was able to hit a tight line, and make a nice approach to the basket.
Now that is excellent news. At least we know it will have worked once. Thanks, Mark.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 12-21-2012, 10:39 AM
johnrhouck johnrhouck is offline
.:Master Course Designer:.
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Austin TX
Years Playing: 41.6
Posts: 534
Niced 21 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan McDaniel View Post
The way I play ball golf often requires a pitch out. Sometimes I am left with shot making opportunities but the pitch out is usually the only sane option. So, I have always had this comparison in my mind while designing.
Now that's interesting. Since the way I play golf usually involves dropping a new ball in the fairway, I don't get those same opportunities.

Quote:
I do admit that I had never thought about the recovery route concept till I walked Pittsboro with John and listened to his philosophy and saw what he was trying to achieve. I wholeheartedly endorse John's idea of recovery routes.
Thanks, Stan.

Quote:
Even with recovery routes there will still be pitchouts. The thrower will still have to keep the shot pretty close to the fairway to have a chance to use the recovery routes.
Of course you're right. We can't save everyone. And we don't want to.

Quote:
The recovery route is kind of like being in the furst cut of rough where you still have a chance to strike the ball and also havea reasonable path to the green. If your throw goes a bit too far to use the recovery route you will likely be faced with some form of a pitchout. (sometimes called a thumber)
Exactly.

Quote:
The only downside that I see is the amount of extra work required to create these. Most of the wooded courses we have built here in Charlotte take at least 1500 manhours of volunteer labor. I may be wrong, but I would imagine that building the recovery routes takes nearly 30% to 50% extra work on a hole for clearing and dragging. This would take the manhours required to build a wooded course from 1500 to somewhere from 1900 to 2300 manhours. That is just a guess.
You're absolutely right about these features requiring extra work. In this case, I want to again recognize the amazing volunteers we've had giving love to this course. And it starts with the three main guys: Jeff Baldwin, Noah Becker, and Mr. Sloppy himself.

But I think your math may be off a bit. Hole #1, which is the one in the article, is about 600' long and about 20' wide, to use rough numbers. The landing area is about 100' long and probably averages about 35' wide. So that's (600 x 20) plus (100 x 15 extra) = 12,000 +1,500, or 13,500 square feet worth of clearing. The PITTSBOROS on either side of the landing area add about 100' x 10' each. So that's 2,000 extra square feet of clearing, or about an extra 15% worth of work. The third PITTSBORO on that hole involves selective clearing of a percentage of that area, so maybe that adds another 5%. So that's maybe an extra 20% on that hole, and we don't have them on every hole. Overall, I'd guess it's an extra 10-15% total over the entire course. We'll see if the players (and the volunteers) think it was worth it.

To be honest with you, I didn't expect these guys to tackle that last area until after everything else was done, but apparently they just couldn't stop themselves. As I said, they're amazing.

My estimates could be off, also. Maybe Mr. Sloppy can confirm or correct.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 12-21-2012, 10:48 AM
Mando's Avatar
Mando Mando is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Years Playing: 11
Courses Played: 116
Posts: 1,607
Niced 46 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Played WR Jackson again this week, which is a great example of recovery route design. I can't imagine a course of that length being enjoyable without them. As far as installing these, I think they should be a second installation phase of any moderate to long wooded course, but not necessarily on every hole.
For example, shortest hole at Sugaree is 189 feet, but if you get in the rhodos below the hole, you can easily score a 5. It's the only hole that recovery routes have not been added and believe me, the course plays alot differently since they were installed.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 12-21-2012, 10:51 AM
Stan McDaniel's Avatar
Stan McDaniel Stan McDaniel is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Indian Trail N.C.
Courses Played: 13
Posts: 612
Niced 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

You may well be right. I am just relying on my unreliable memory. When working in the woods I tend to underestimate the amount of clearing on wooded holes. It always ends up being more labor intensive than it looks. It still seems that 10-15% would be on the low side, but, I guess my point was that significant extra work would be involved,,,,and worth it for the final product.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 12-21-2012, 10:56 AM
Stan McDaniel's Avatar
Stan McDaniel Stan McDaniel is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Indian Trail N.C.
Courses Played: 13
Posts: 612
Niced 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mando View Post
Played WR Jackson again this week, which is a great example of recovery route design. I can't imagine a course of that length being enjoyable without them. As far as installing these, I think they should be a second installation phase of any moderate to long wooded course, but not necessarily on every hole.
For example, shortest hole at Sugaree is 189 feet, but if you get in the rhodos below the hole, you can easily score a 5. It's the only hole that recovery routes have not been added and believe me, the course plays alot differently since they were installed.
I remember WRJ as a different type of woods. It consists mainly of large pine trees (mostly). There are lots of recovery routes between the large trees whereas in most wooded areas there are tons of smaller trees filling the gaps between the large trees.
Reply With Quote
 

  #330  
Old 12-21-2012, 11:07 AM
Mando's Avatar
Mando Mando is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Years Playing: 11
Courses Played: 116
Posts: 1,607
Niced 46 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan McDaniel View Post
I remember WRJ as a different type of woods. It consists mainly of large pine trees (mostly). There are lots of recovery routes between the large trees whereas in most wooded areas there are tons of smaller trees filling the gaps between the large trees.
Yea, you are right. If it was previously managed for pine production, the understory would have been thinned out in a selective harvest and/or periodically prescribed burned. In any case, I really like the current spacing of the trees.
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 05:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.