“Boring” disc golf courses (particularly on coverage)

[Rastnav]

I've seen this sentiment a few times and while I agree, I wonder how much of this is actually caused by the design or simply just lack of familiarity with the course since it's new to the tour. As this course is used in the future, will we see more uniformity of approaches on the holes as the players learn the course better? I think to a large degree the answer is yes. It seemed like a lot of players were already emulating each other's strategies of going very wide off many fairways because there was no punishment for doing so and the approach was just as fruitful.

I think a few more mandos will be added. Obviously the triple mando on hole 18 that wasn't listed in the caddy book will be in next time, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a few more.

 

[biscoe]

I've seen this sentiment a few times and while I agree, I wonder how much of this is actually caused by the design or simply just lack of familiarity with the course since it's new to the tour. As this course is used in the future, will we see more uniformity of approaches on the holes as the players learn the course better? I think to a large degree the answer is yes. It seemed like a lot of players were already emulating each other's strategies of going very wide off many fairways because there was no punishment for doing so and the approach was just as fruitful.

If they continue to use this course I expect to see more mandos as well.

 

[Rastnav]

If they continue to use this course I expect to see more mandos as well.

Unless the golf course decides they have some issue with holding the tournament, I have to think this course is something of a lock next year. The pros had such a generally positive reaction to the course, regarding it as both challenging and interesting, I have to think that's a big factor. Maybe if they got Muise (or someone else who is very respected) to design a different temporary course (wherever), you could see a sort of "new course this year" tournament.

Since there is already a DG course on the property, I would think the course is going to be OK with it, but obviously this course wasn't the same one as is normally there. It's probably more disruptive to ball golf than the normal course, still I don't think that would be likely?

I suppose OTB could back out, which also seems unlikely, but I can't imagine someone wouldn't step in to that breach.

 

[biscoe]

Unless the golf course decides they have some issue with holding the tournament, I have to think this course is something of a lock next year. The pros had such a generally positive reaction to the course, regarding it as both challenging and interesting, I have to think that's a big factor. Maybe if they got Muise (or someone else who is very respected) to design a different temporary course (wherever), you could see a sort of "new course this year" tournament.

Since there is already a DG course on the property, I would think the course is going to be OK with it, but obviously this course wasn't the same one as is normally there. It's probably more disruptive to ball golf than the normal course, still I don't think that would be likely?

I suppose OTB could back out, which also seems unlikely, but I can't imagine someone wouldn't step in to that breach.

IMO the bidding for DGPT events is on the verge of getting very competitive.

 

[ChrisWoj]

But what about what we're seeing at Swenson? Half of the holes have the majority throwing BH rollers off the tee. Is the repetition really the boring part, as you said above? Or is it the fact that it's just not hyzer shots? I question the Ryan P. who said there was "a variety of shots" at Swenson. I didn't see "variety. " Tell how it was "variety" vs "shots we don't see very often" happening over and over.

I'd like to see a variety of shapes on those rollers. I don't mind the rollers on half the holes - but when they're just rollers for distance, even with the variety of ways they could go wrong, it is boring. Swenson was far from the most exciting place to watch on tour. It was, really, pretty mediocre from a viewing standpoint. There were several neat shots, but having such a predominance of the distance rollers was meh.

 

[araytx]

I've seen this sentiment a few times and while I agree, I wonder how much of this is actually caused by the design or simply just lack of familiarity with the course since it's new to the tour. As this course is used in the future, will we see more uniformity of approaches on the holes as the players learn the course better? I think to a large degree the answer is yes. It seemed like a lot of players were already emulating each other's strategies of going very wide off many fairways because there was no punishment for doing so and the approach was just as fruitful.

I definitely think this is true. It's likely that a good bit of the "variety of shots off the tee" that Rastnav and Ryan P are hanging on to have to do with players unfamiliarity with the course. In their defense, the same would likely be true for nearly any new course, without a well-defined clear advantage. Look at #6 for example. A lots of plays the first couple days then everyone settled that FH spike hyzer was the best shot if you have it.

IMO the bidding for DGPT events is on the verge of getting very competitive if....

...communities can meet the DGPT standards.
ftfy.

Remember it's more than a course that causes an event to make the DGPT. The community has a lot to do with it. Ask the Memorial.

I'd like to see a variety of shapes on those rollers. I don't mind the rollers on half the holes - but when they're just rollers for distance, even with the variety of ways they could go wrong, it is boring. Swenson was far from the most exciting place to watch on tour. It was, really, pretty mediocre from a viewing standpoint. There were several neat shots, but having such a predominance of the distance rollers was meh.

That's what I saw as well.

 

[Ryan P.]

I definitely think this is true. It's likely that a good bit of the "variety of shots off the tee" that Rastnav and Ryan P are hanging on to have to do with players unfamiliarity with the course. In their defense, the same would likely be true for nearly any new course, without a well-defined clear advantage. Look at #6 for example. A lots of plays the first couple days then everyone settled that FH spike hyzer was the best shot if you have it.

I'm not holding onto anything. I've made statements that this course is better than most ball golf courses, offers a variety of lines, and provided evidence for both things. You've provided opinions saying you disagree with me, and provided evidence for what you think. I don't necessarily see how our views disagree with each other, but you seem to. I do think there's a ton of ways to improve this course (as there is with any course).

As far as what you said is evidence that pros will gravitate toward throwing one type of shot on holes, I think that always happens. However, this course offers a lot of holes where many different pros threw different shots. Your conjecture that because one player changed their shot from R1-R3 on hole 6 (Eagle, the only one I can find who changed it, but if there are more I'd love to know) that everyone will move toward one shot on every hole is conjecture.

I agree that the novelty of the course is attractive. One of the great things about Worlds is how its at a different venue each year.

I should also say that I'm viewing this course from the perspective of the average golf course on tour nowadays. I enjoy watching woods golf more, and I love watching strategic golf more. A combination of the two (strategic, wooded golf) is ideal. However, as there are few courses still on tour that provide that combination, I'll take one when I can get it. I think you'll agree with the sentiment that it is sad how strategic, wooded golf is a dying breed on tour. When I see the tour headed back toward that in any regard, I'll take it.

 

[biscoe]

IMO the bidding for DGPT events is on the verge of getting very competitive if....

...communities can meet the DGPT standards.
ftfy.

Remember it's more than a course that causes an event to make the DGPT. The community has a lot to do with it. Ask the Memorial.

Of course it is more than course quality...I did not say otherwise. If it were just about the courses they wouldn't play in desert states at all...

Ability to raise money, muster volunteers, fit into the schedule, cell signal at the course, and potential for spectators all fall ahead of actual course quality in terms of bidding for an event (and not necessarily in that order). Lack of any one of those things can render something a non-starter. The course just needs to be "good enough". That being said I am pretty sure that the Memorial's days of being an Elite event are done unless they have a golf course they can utilize. Those courses don't even meet the bar of "good enough".

What I am saying is that the number of communities both willing and capable of running these big events is larger than ever before. There is actually now some legitimacy to the idea that bringing the Tour to your town will benefit your area.

There are also an increasing number of places building courses specifically for high end event play. For example I expect there will be 2 bids from Virginia upcoming with both utilizing courses which fit that description.

 

[Tee1]

There are exceptions. Milo is fun to watch. I do agree with you there. And I've played a handful of courses out West that were fun and challenging. I just prefer woods golf. I just wish we could get away from these converted ball golf courses. Who wants to see sand traps and golf greens when you are throwing a disc? The only thing the 2 sports have in common is scoring and the word golf in the name.

 

[perklc]

An advantage that I felt the OTB course has over Vegas and ECC that I haven't seen mentioned is that Swenson is visually more appealing. It was a beautiful piece of property, so it might be that I am willing to forgive a little more repetition than I am the other two events.

 

[biscoe]

An advantage that I felt the OTB course has over Vegas and ECC that I haven't seen mentioned is that Swenson is visually more appealing. It was a beautiful piece of property, so it might be that I am willing to forgive a little more repetition than I am the other two events.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I watched a full round of Swenson and all I remember visually is it was flat, brown, and there was some chain link fence somewhere. Gleneagles was a beautiful piece of property.

 

[araytx]

Of course it is more than course quality...I did not say otherwise. If it were just about the courses they wouldn't play in desert states at all...

Ability to raise money, muster volunteers, fit into the schedule, cell signal at the course, and potential for spectators all fall ahead of actual course quality in terms of bidding for an event (and not necessarily in that order). Lack of any one of those things can render something a non-starter. The course just needs to be "good enough". That being said I am pretty sure that the Memorial's days of being an Elite event are done unless they have a golf course they can utilize. Those courses don't even meet the bar of "good enough".

What I am saying is that the number of communities both willing and capable of running these big events is larger than ever before. There is actually now some legitimacy to the idea that bringing the Tour to your town will benefit your area.

There are also an increasing number of places building courses specifically for high end event play. For example I expect there will be 2 bids from Virginia upcoming with both utilizing courses which fit that description.

OK, I'll accept. And we'll see if it actually happens. As far as "competitive," I could just as easily see three or four good bids coming in and the ones not getting this year's bid being slated for a future year.

 

[araytx]

I'm not holding onto anything. I've made statements that this course is better than most ball golf courses, offers a variety of lines, and provided evidence for both things. You've provided opinions saying you disagree with me, and provided evidence for what you think. I don't necessarily see how our views disagree with each other, but you seem to. I do think there's a ton of ways to improve this course (as there is with any course).

As far as what you said is evidence that pros will gravitate toward throwing one type of shot on holes, I think that always happens. However, this course offers a lot of holes where many different pros threw different shots. Your conjecture that because one player changed their shot from R1-R3 on hole 6 (Eagle, the only one I can find who changed it, but if there are more I'd love to know) that everyone will move toward one shot on every hole is conjecture.

I agree that the novelty of the course is attractive. One of the great things about Worlds is how its at a different venue each year.

I should also say that I'm viewing this course from the perspective of the average golf course on tour nowadays. I enjoy watching woods golf more, and I love watching strategic golf more. A combination of the two (strategic, wooded golf) is ideal. However, as there are few courses still on tour that provide that combination, I'll take one when I can get it. I think you'll agree with the sentiment that it is sad how strategic, wooded golf is a dying breed on tour. When I see the tour headed back toward that in any regard, I'll take it.

OK, I'll accept. I didn't really get that you were merely comparing to other ball golf courses (the famed "skinniest fat guy" argument), so I'll give it to you. I'm not disagreeing in that context. I'm just saying I didn't see the variety that some players feel they saw-- and I was trying to discern whether they felt it was because it was a different type of throw instead of hyzer.

But I'll take you at your word.

And leave you with one question. Can a course be BOTH "novelty attractive" and "boring"? I don't know.