“Roller blockers”, “anti-roller devices”, “Roller inhibitors” — pick a term”

[araytx]

This subject was brought up about the new re-design at Swenson Park for the OTB Open in Stockton, CA this weekend.

The topic is the logs and other similar design elements placed "strategically" to either prevent roller shots in certain cases or require a lot more roller precision. What do those compare to in other designs???

What does everybody think about the logs placed to prevent rollers?

I get using numerous low clearance shots to prevent big hyzers. I think for the most part everybody seems to enjoy that design element. Yeah there were a lot of rollers thrown last year, but rollers aren't necessarily a gimme birdie magic bullet. If you get the angle wrong you can end up way out of position, and high wind and short golf course grass can cause them to behave weirdly.

Sure they can get you birdie or eagle looks compared to a low laser beam tee shot but they can also lead to disaster. The logs look goofy out there. A fantastic roller definitely makes for a highlight reel shot. Personally I think the course would be better without them.

 

[Agricolae]

This subject was brought up about the new re-design at Swenson Park for the OTB Open in Stockton, CA this weekend.

The topic is the logs and other similar design elements placed "strategically" to either prevent roller shots in certain cases or require a lot more roller precision. What do those compare to in other designs???

I don't recall roller blockers but have seen nets intentionally placed high off the tee as overhand thumber/tomahawk blockers.

My personal preference is to use natural elements in hole design.

 

[wolfhaley]

Slow your roll.

 

[Flick Maniac]

I don't recall roller blockers but have seen nets intentionally placed high off the tee as overhand thumber/tomahawk blockers.

My personal preference is to use natural elements in hole design.

Yeah, #17 at USDGC has one. I dont really like it, and would like to see how many overhand shots would be thrown without it, and would it be an advantage. I cant imagine its that easy to drop a thumber/tomahawk on the island either.

 

[smoothplayer]

Yeah, #17 at USDGC has one. I dont really like it, and would like to see how many overhand shots would be thrown without it, and would it be an advantage. I cant imagine its that easy to drop a thumber/tomahawk on the island either.

I think putting up nets and logs is unneeded. If someone has a good enough OH shot in their arsenal, then let's see it. OH shots are also much harder when the wind is up as it effects the disc (how quickly it flips, distance and line) a lot more. It can quickly turn into a disadvantage too.

How about make a better course without nets and logs. I don't think I saw the logs come into play even at all yet, a couple rollers jumped over one (just watching pre-recorded stuff though).

 

[Muddyboots]

Kinda tough to answer. I don't like the look/idea of contrived obstacles in general, or OB for that matter. By the same token, a natural obstacle,, be it a rock or log that influences shot selection or execution (Anaconda root @ DeLa, for instance) just seems like an added challenge. Result is same, but the natural feature is less offensive. My take away is that a good design *shouldn't * need additional elements. Sounds like most of the players agree. Swenson looks like a nice, albeit flat, property. Pretty repetitive, from what I can see on video. I do think that as the tour grows and develops, they'll have a chance to move to better disc golf courses. Whether they take that opportunity or not remains to be seen.

 

[seedlings]

How about cut to the chase and say, "on this tee, rollers or overhand shots incur one penalty stroke."

 

[nothinbuttree]

It's like adding a Mando when someone finds a line no one thought of before. Usually only a few players in a field can take advantage of that line anyway, so if it gives them a leg up, go for it.

Seeing different shots on a hole is more entertaining than everyone throwing the exact same thing. Let players use their entire arsenal.

I would guess scoring separation decreases when a designer tries to force or eliminate a particular shot type. But that's only a guess.

 

[smoothplayer]

It's like adding a Mando when someone finds a line no one thought of before. Usually only a few players in a field can take advantage of that line anyway, so if it gives them a leg up, go for it.

Seeing different shots on a hole is more entertaining than everyone throwing the exact same thing. Let players use their entire arsenal.

I would guess scoring separation decreases when a designer tries to force or eliminate a particular shot type. But that's only a guess.

The designers get mad when the players don't play the hole like they want, so they add a Mando.

 

[DavidSauls]

The distinction between a "natural" obstacle and an "artificial" obstacle is aesthetic. A hole plays the same, whether the designer finds a pre-existing feature and designs to incorporate it, or adds it later.

We've carved fairways through woods to force a left turn, or a right turn, or left branches to make a low ceiling, or cut them away to open up a high route. We've planted trees (is that natural, or artificial?). Are fairways that we cut out of the woods natural, or artificial? They wouldn't be there without our intervention. Or is adding something artificial, but declining to remove it natural?

I wouldn't design to prohibit a roller, myself. Rollers have enough hazard if they go awry, and are amazing when they work. But we've put in some barriers to keep low shots from skipping to the basket, forcing the throwing to throw high enough to clear them, or end up with a missable putt. Those would also result in blocking rollers, but that's not their intent.

 

[araytx]

The distinction between a "natural" obstacle and an "artificial" obstacle is aesthetic. A hole plays the same, whether the designer finds a pre-existing feature and designs to incorporate it, or adds it later.

We've carved fairways through woods to force a left turn, or a right turn, or left branches to make a low ceiling, or cut them away to open up a high route. We've planted trees (is that natural, or artificial?). Are fairways that we cut out of the woods natural, or artificial? They wouldn't be there without our intervention. Or is adding something artificial, but declining to remove it natural?

I wouldn't design to prohibit a roller, myself. Rollers have enough hazard if they go awry, and are amazing when they work. But we've put in some barriers to keep low shots from skipping to the basket, forcing the throwing to throw high enough to clear them, or end up with a missable putt. Those would also result in blocking rollers, but that's not their intent.

I'd like to hear more about these "obstacles designed to prevent low shots from skipping to the basket. What's the thought process behind the design? (more than just "you didn't want that").

My take on these roller blockers (I hear now that the designer at Swenson calls them "RPGs", for "roller precision guides" is it seems like when players find a way to defeat what a designer intended he/she finds a way to FORCE the design they want. I'm really against preventing a player from using his entire arsenal of throws and actions. We laugh at he PDGA commercial where Sarah Hokom asks, What abut forehands only?", yet here is a DGPT event doing essentially that (but in reverse). Where do we draw the line between the cheesiness of mozzarella sticks at USDGC or Belton (see what I did there) or hanging baskets or literal clown's mouths and feeding birds?

I don't recall roller blockers but have seen nets intentionally placed high off the tee as overhand thumber/tomahawk blockers.

My personal preference is to use natural elements in hole design.

Yeah, I am against that as well. Allow a player to use his skills. Some work hard at improving and making their skills work. These types of things, imho, are part of the course designer getting frustrated over his intended design getting defeated. AT Swenson he has all these longer low ceiling throws intending to test that skill and players with good roller game were just defeating that last year.

 

[smoothplayer]

The distinction between a "natural" obstacle and an "artificial" obstacle is aesthetic. A hole plays the same, whether the designer finds a pre-existing feature and designs to incorporate it, or adds it later.

We've carved fairways through woods to force a left turn, or a right turn, or left branches to make a low ceiling, or cut them away to open up a high route. We've planted trees (is that natural, or artificial?). Are fairways that we cut out of the woods natural, or artificial? They wouldn't be there without our intervention. Or is adding something artificial, but declining to remove it natural?

I wouldn't design to prohibit a roller, myself. Rollers have enough hazard if they go awry, and are amazing when they work. But we've put in some barriers to keep low shots from skipping to the basket, forcing the throwing to throw high enough to clear them, or end up with a missable putt. Those would also result in blocking rollers, but that's not their intent.

Artificial OB/Water doesn't play like water at all. Players skip and roll through the artificial stuff all the time.

Obviously the aesthetic is the biggest one and it plays very poorly on video as it's very difficult to tell the difference between the two a lot of the time. You see water you know the result, you see grass you might not even know if it's in or out of bounds. What is the point of watching when you can't even tell a good shot from a bad one? That is the problem with the lines and ropes.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Disc golf designers have the freedom to do what they want with natural and artificial elements unless a sanctioning body or legal authority (building codes) say "No" or perhaps something has to be constructed or done in a certain way such as requiring PDGA Approved Championship targets. My general design orientation is biased toward fun, fair and challenging elements that can be seen, i.e., not blind from tee/landing areas versus punitive, blind and fluky elements. Under my above criteria, I would have no problem using RPGs if they made sense for shot shaping, especially on a course like Swenson where it looked like rollers could be used on most holes except where water was directly in play.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'd like to hear more about these "obstacles designed to prevent low shots from skipping to the basket. What's the thought process behind the design? (more than just "you didn't want that").
.

To add challenge.

Here's one.



It's over a deeper valley than may appear, with the ground sloping up at the basket. The barricade -- a stack of railroad ties -- forces the player to stay high enough to clear them. If he doesn't, he has a 25-30' putt, instead of a drop-in.

 

[DavidSauls]

Artificial OB/Water doesn't play like water at all. Players skip and roll through the artificial stuff all the time.

Obviously the aesthetic is the biggest one and it plays very poorly on video as it's very difficult to tell the difference between the two a lot of the time. You see water you know the result, you see grass you might not even know if it's in or out of bounds. What is the point of watching when you can't even tell a good shot from a bad one? That is the problem with the lines and ropes.

Fair enough...particular if you throw rollers over OB (rollers being the specific instance in this thread).

I frequently play courses with lots of OB -- water and pavement and flags/ropes -- and it doesn't play exactly the same, but it plays mostly the same.

But I was really thinking in terms of the thread's subject -- solid objects used as obstacles.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yeah, I am against that as well. Allow a player to use his skills. Some work hard at improving and making their skills work. These types of things, imho, are part of the course designer getting frustrated over his intended design getting defeated. AT Swenson he has all these longer low ceiling throws intending to test that skill and players with good roller game were just defeating that last year.

Devil's advocate. I tuck a tee back in the woods where overhead branches block overhand shots, am I depriving players of using their skills?

If I design a hole where players can thwart my intent by throwing thumbers, but over the years allow the trees to grow in and block those routes, am I removing a test of skills?

What's the difference between using natural design features to constrain shots, or pre-existing unnatural ones (such as an old stone wall), or constructing obstacles that do the same thing? Other than aesthetics?

It's not that aesthetics are unimportant, particularly for high-level events. We never put a net up on the "thumber" hole I mentioned above -- even though I'd seen one on another course, and coveted it -- because it would have marred the appearance, even though it would have improved the play.

 

[Ahildy13]

Fair enough...particular if you throw rollers over OB (rollers being the specific instance in this thread).

I frequently play courses with lots of OB -- water and pavement and flags/ropes -- and it doesn't play exactly the same, but it plays mostly the same.

But I was really thinking in terms of the thread's subject -- solid objects used as obstacles.

We already know OMD's prerogative, just stop engaging him.

 

[DavidSauls]

We already know OMD's prerogative, just stop engaging him.

He's far from the only person who's made a natural/artificial distinction over the years. My argument is for everyone, to consider what that really means.

 

[DavidSauls]

So....

We have two creeks. I suppose they're natural.
We once moved the channel in part of that creek. Was it then artificial?
We paid someone to dam one of the creeks and build a 2.5 acre pond. Is that natural?
We built a swimming pool that's hopefully far enough away from all but the worst shots. But if someone puts a disc in it, presumably it's artificial.
We're thinking about cutting down a tree on a fairway. If we don't, does it become artificial?
A leaning tree was part of a design. Presumably, natural. But it's roots were weakening, and it began to lean too far. So I lifted it with a tractor, and put a brace under it to restore it to where it originally was. Is that artificial?
One route on a hole has a low mound of dirt that blocks low shots. We've thought about moving it. But if we don't, is it a natural obstacle? If it weren't there but we brought in dirt to make a mound, would that be artificial?

I say it's often a distinction without a difference. Sure, I've seen a basket on top of a free-standing spiral staircase, and other odd constructions. But I still go back to, if the "artificial" obstacles plays the same as a "natural" obstacle would have, had it existed, I don't see it as a problem. (It may be a good design or bad design, but that's another issue).

 

[Dingus]

Rollers are spectacular shots and have a huge risk reward factor. Once the disc hits the ground a lot can go wrong. I personally don't see why you would ever discourage a roller. On the topic of natural vs. artificial features, I don't care either way. I just like rollers.