Does size matter?

[Puckstopper]

Any course is better than no course, but I'll take short and well designed over long and boring any day. Here in Columbus I'd rather play Blendon Woods over Griggs Reservoir any day of the week, although given my options I play Simsbury or Brett Hambrick which are the best of both worlds. Maybe that's my answer, I'd drive further to play a longer, well laid out course than I would to compromise.

 

[BirdieMachine]

I like the longer course. We have some short tracks that are OK and fun but all the better courses mix in long and short holes. Tests the whole game better.

 

[GripEnemy]

Longer.

I may be in the minority but unless I'm on vacation and it's the only course near me, I wouldn't bother making it to a course with an average distance of 225'.

Sedgley Woods (Philadelphia) isn't far from me, but I never play it. In the longest layout possible the average hole length is 283' for all 27. If you take away hole#27 (462') it drops to an average of 277'. The back 9 itself has an average hole lengh of 307' and again, this is for the LONGEST layout possible. It gets really ****ing boring throwing my putter on nearly every hole, with only the occasional Drone/Tursas shots when required. I don't even bring drivers when I do play it.


So knock 50' off of Sedg's longest average? Hell no from yours truly

 

[Kenny53691]

A well designed course is more likely to bring you back more than just being a longer course in my opinion.

 

[Hyzer Ale]

This is a really fun course that I never need a driver on. Although I prefer a longer course I would play this one every day over one in an open field. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1016 Average length only 212'

 

[ru4por]

This is a really fun course that I never need a driver on. Although I prefer a longer course I would play this one every day over one in an open field. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1016 Average length only 212'

Well, all said and done. Black Mouse is a good example of distance not entering into an equation. The elevation there adds considerable distance. Great course though, if anyone is out that way.

 

[b-mart]

I can make this choice every day. Howling Coyote vs Juel. One I play all the time, the other I have to be dragged to kicking and screaming.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Given that most courses are limited by the land they occupy, the real question is: Would you rather play on 18 holes with an average length of 225', or about 10 to 13 holes with an average length of 350'?

Wonderful point.
I would opt for as mainy quality holes as possible.
Given the plot of land, if you layed it out as an 18, and again a 10-13 hole course, does the 10-13 hole layout yield substantially better holes?

If yes, then make a really good 10-13 hole course rather than a meh 18.
If no, might as well make it 18.
If the holes really aren't any more interesting one way or the other, go for 18.

Quality holes over quantity of holes.

 

[Disc Fiend]

Where is the poll?

 

[dtuba]

Given the choice between the two options in the OP I would rather play the short well designed course for sure. I don't have a big arm so I tend to favor shorter, tighter more technical courses over long open courses anyway.

What Old Dog said. Shorter= better for this noodle arm.

 

[BraveThrower43]

Well designed.

I feel like there are a lot of well designed short courses that don't get the credit they deserve because they are shorter and thus deemed easier. Many people put down courses in my area claiming they can shoot way under par but come PDGA time those scores are few and far between. Just because you CAN birdie every hole doesn't mean you are going to do it. Still gotta hit those lines and putts.

Sometimes the land given dictates what can or can't be done with a course. A course can be made challenging without distance if the property is right.

I have played mediocre or poor longer layouts that I would pass on in a second to go play a shorter fun technical layout.

 

[DavidSauls]

225' average is pushing it.....I play a lot on some well-designed courses that average 250' or a little more. I would---I do---play them in favor of longer, mediocre courses.

Neither would be my first choice, however.

 

[wr758]

The longest course that i have ever played is West City DGC in Festus, MO. For long pads and long pins it avg some where in the neighborhood of 550ft, the closing hole is 1100ft long. Talk about dumping the tank to get through a round :clap:

 

[disc gopher]

any girl who answers no is trying not to hurt your feelings

 

[scarpfish]

Where is the poll?

In nonexistence land where it belongs. Open ended answers are always better.

 

[GripEnemy]

Given the choice between the two options in the OP I would rather play the short well designed course for sure. I don't have a big arm so I tend to favor shorter, tighter more technical courses over long open courses anyway.

(I know you weren't talking to me...I posted after you)

Though I respect this POV I never mentioned OPEN long holes. Give me Iron Hill in golds all day. Not some of the stuff I see the top pros playing:\

Given that most courses are limited by the land they occupy, the real question is: Would you rather play on 18 holes with an average length of 225', or about 10 to 13 holes with an average length of 350'?

You're telling me you'd rather play 18 well designed short holes than 9 long technical ones? More than one [long and technical] teepad and BOOM - "18 holes."

Wonderful point.
I would opt for as mainy quality holes as possible.
Given the plot of land, if you layed it out as an 18, and again a 10-13 hole course, does the 10-13 hole layout yield substantially better holes?

If yes, then make a really good 10-13 hole course rather than a meh 18.
If no, might as well make it 18.
If the holes really aren't any more interesting one way or the other, go for 18.

Quality holes over quantity of holes.

+1 bolded

 

[scarpfish]

Given that most courses are limited by the land they occupy, the real question is: Would you rather play on 18 holes with an average length of 225', or about 10 to 13 holes with an average length of 350'?

9 or 12 good holes with dual tees over a crammed 18 any day. The park can even save money on baskets, which they can spend on the extra pads.

 

[Mabuku1]

To me a well designed course allows you to use all the discs in your bag. The most boring thing, no matter how challenging, is having a course so short you only need to throw midrange and putters. I think variety is an amazing thing that keeps the interests of all.

 

[Disc Fiend]

In nonexistence land where it belongs. Open ended answers are always better.

There would still be open ended answers in the thread even if there was a poll.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If I have two identical properties in terms of terrain mix but one allows me to only do a 4000 ft course and the other a 6300 ft course, the 6300 ft course will typically be seen as better simply because the holes can have a wider variety of lengths. So in some respects, it's going to be harder to have a 225 avg course be rated well and a 350 ft course as weak on the same type of terrain.