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

[Cgkdisc]

Obviously. I happen to think that design by subtraction (if trees must be removed) or creative tee/basket placement is more desirable than adding debris to block rollers.

It may be ideal but not always practical in the case where nature subtracts important elements in the design. It would be nice to add a full-grown live tree back where it was growing before it fell. Not possible. Putting a young tree in its place? Possible but experience shows that those young trees can get damaged either from disc hits or more likely vandalism. Adding a post in front of it can help it grow and may reduce vandalism. None of these options are realistically better than replanting the fallen tree trunk back in place or placing larger diameter pole like recycled telephone or power line poles.

With regard to roller blockers, the most effective and natural way to discourage rollers is to simply not mow the area or as low. I suspect we witnessed the only time roller blockers were added by the designer was lack of property control on a ball golf course where most grass is mowed and even the rough might still be low enough to be rollable.

The issue here is the concern that viewers will mimic certain unusual design elements they see online on their local holes where it's not advisable or needed.

 

[DeanMoriarty]

Honestly, I think it's high time we take it a step further and start having gladiators standing near circle 1 trying to swat away any discs that approach the basket.

That would increase difficulty and perhaps we could eventually make disc golf full-contact which would open us up to an entirely new crowd.

 

[araytx]

Being a co-designer, I can answer about the hole in the photo I attached.

With this caveat: every course should have its audience in mind when designed. My brother and I built a private course, and we're our main audience; we built the sort of holes and course that we enjoy playing. We're pleased to be able to share it, and that others enjoy it too. But we're our main audience.

We put that barricade in when we built the hole. We recognized that throwing into a slope gave a disc extra sticking power, and we wanted to add some challenge by having an obstacle that the disc had to clear -- with the danger than, in getting the throw up to clear it, you risk overshooting the basket.

Why not other holes? Well, others don't have this slope, so they're trickier to park or lay up, as they are. Plus, we like a wide variety of challenges on a course, so we wouldn't add that challenge on every hole. We have 1 hanging basket (which is more cute, than effective). 1 basket on a raised mound. 1 on each of the two layouts where you frequently lay up short of a creek, to putt over it. 1 with a natural archway (there are other arched trees we could have used). And so on. It's a valid design (to us), but not something we would do everywhere.

We have some holes where overhand players can use and benefit from that skill, and others where the tee is purposefully located where they can't. In the later case, by natural obstacles that we chose to leave, instead of artificial obstacles we could have chosen to install.

In that case (my scenario A), I think it is a natural barrier that was part of original design. That was always your intent.

....

With regard to roller blockers, the most effective and natural way to discourage rollers is to simply not mow the area or as low. I suspect we witnessed the only time roller blockers were added by the designer was lack of property control on a ball golf course where most grass is mowed and even the rough might still be low enough to be rollable.

The issue here is the concern that viewers will mimic certain unusual design elements they see online on their local holes where it's not advisable or needed.

That is a REALISTIC concern. I mean how many "re-tee island holes" were there out in the disc golf world before the USDGC (specifically hole #17) became widely televised on the Internet?

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Why does ONE hole on a course have "skip-up preventers" and not all of the holes?

Maybe because all the holes are different and the designer wanted them to be that way? In trying to make this argument against what you view as artificial, you are employing some arguments that are really kind of weak. This one is finding inconsistency where there is none based upon the false assumption that there is some rule that all holes on a course must value the same "skills valued by the course designer" in order to be consistent.

You may have seen the hyperbolic cliams that some particular course "requires every shot in the bag" or something similar. None of them really do although some designers give it their best. And, of course, players with limited skills want every hole to cater to those limited skills. I've had holes called "unfair" because the hole requires a dead straight or right turning shot to avoid OB!

There's nothing wrong with designing a hole to requires a certain type of shot. If every hole were required to be designed to allow any type of throw for a birdie, disc golf would be pretty boring.

If, as in the case of the "unfair" hole I mentioned above, players cannot execute a straight or right turning shot, then they deserve to give up a stroke to players that can on a hole that requires it. Using elements that are designed to force that kind shot to make a birdie by preventing other types of shots is simply how that is done. Natural vs artificial complaintis are typically nothing more than either: a) a meaningless argument about aesthetics; or, b) a way to make up an argument that doesn't sound like whining by players who don't have that shot in their bag and are, indeed, whining.

BTW, here's a video of that "unfair" hole during a tournament, notice the Mando:



You can get away with a little fade on a shot that doesn't turn right, but not much.

 

[jenb]

Quadruple mando.

 

[araytx]

Maybe because all the holes are different and the designer wanted them to be that way? In trying to make this argument against what you view as artificial, you are employing some arguments that are really kind of weak. This one is finding inconsistency where there is none based upon the false assumption that there is some rule that all holes on a course must value the same "skills valued by the course designer" in order to be consistent.

You may have seen the hyperbolic cliams that some particular course "requires every shot in the bag" or something similar. None of them really do although some designers give it their best. And, of course, players with limited skills want every hole to cater to those limited skills. I've had holes called "unfair" because the hole requires a dead straight or right turning shot to avoid OB!

There's nothing wrong with designing a hole to requires a certain type of shot. If every hole were required to be designed to allow any type of throw for a birdie, disc golf would be pretty boring.

If, as in the case of the "unfair" hole I mentioned above, players cannot execute a straight or right turning shot, then they deserve to give up a stroke to players that can on a hole that requires it. Using elements that are designed to force that kind shot to make a birdie by preventing other types of shots is simply how that is done. Natural vs artificial complaintis are typically nothing more than either: a) a meaningless argument about aesthetics; or, b) a way to make up an argument that doesn't sound like whining by players who don't have that shot in their bag and are, indeed, whining.

BTW, here's a video of that "unfair" hole during a tournament, notice the Mando:



You can get away with a little fade on a shot that doesn't turn right, but not much.

Well, Doof, from the context of that response, it seems you made some assumptions about my reasoning. I've never said it was "unfair". What seems to me to be "out of whack" is when TDs (typically not designers, but occasionally) do something to a course via tournament regulation because players have come up with inventive ways of defeating their designs. Or that they make the rules change. I'm one of the people who fought vehemently against "forced re-tee island holes" a few years back, because for a while we had the out-of-bounds rules for all these holes, and then SUDDENLY (probably because USDGC #17 was then on video) we have ONE hole amongst the 18 where the OB rules are different. It seemed imho to be very internally inconsistent.

I don't think the hole above is unfair at all. Probably because unlike most dg'ers dead straight is my favorite shot, but that's still all well and good. That design doesn't prohibit attacking the shot a certain way, based upon their skill. For example, if a player has the ability to throw an overhand shot that he knows will land straight ahead (whether he makes the green of not) that design isn't stopping him. What WOULD be artificial and unfair imho, would be on that hole if you had several tournaments and players just stopped going for the deuce and just kept throwing a chip overhand just to get across safely and stay inbounds, then the next tournament, you put up some kind of netting or a man-made obstacle or "stay under mando" to prevent them from throwing overhand. It's like the joking commercial on DGN where Sarah Hokom is requesting "forehands only" -- we just shouldn't imho limit the type of throw that players make. If I player has a different shot available to him the hole shouldn't intentionally be designed to punish that throw.

I am attaching an example. Hole 18 at Lester Lorch Coyote is a changer of a finishing hole, on probably the most frustrating course under 5000' you've ever played. Believe me the pic doesn't do this little 220 downhill hole justice. The gap looks wider than it actually is. Talk about testing your ability to throw dead straight? If you hit a tree inside the gap the likelihood of getting out is low and the likelihood of ricocheting to a spot you can't get up & down from is somewhere around 70% or slightly more. A few years ago, players who were in a close scoring match would literally get to 18, and not wanting to bogey on the end, throw the 300+' thumber over (you can't see from the pic) just to get out of that mini-tunnel and escape with a par 3. So, the next tournament the TD had gotten on a ladder and hung a rope way up there at the top of those tree and made it a "stay under mando," saying you can still throw an overhand shot but you just couldn't go over those trees. He had designed that short "birdie hole" to MAKE people throw down the mini-tunnel and he didn't like that the over-handers were defeating his design. UH, well imho THAT reasoning is the issue. Even though working in my favor I told the TD I didn't like that at all. If a player has a throw he can use, he should be able to. David had his hole originally designed that way with the skip up mound or whatever you call it on that hole. He didn't ADD the skip up mound after seeing players defeat his design tourney after tourney. That to me is very different. And different from the roller blockers, aka RPGs, that were used at the OTB Open. And very different from either your hole above or David's hole described previously.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not philosophically opposed to TDs imposing extra features, OBs, mandos, etc. for tournaments.

But practically, I have problems with two things:

(1) TDs who get too clever and make these additions poorly.

(2) Courses that are so altered by TDs that they're very different in tournament play and casual pay.

 

[Rastnav]

And what if the course designer/maintainer were simply to leave trees in place, and limbs in place, directly over the tee pad? Such that they prevented throwing that overhand shot? Would that be OK? Or is that also not OK?

Limbs might be preferable to a mando, but they aren't really different from a mando. The effect is essentially the same. If a course or tournament would benefit from testing the ability to throw a tunnel shot, and players figure out a way to break the hole so thy can easily get around that test, then the hole is no longer serving its purpose and some sort of re-design is inevitable.

 

[dmoore1998]

I am attaching an example. Hole 18 at Lester Lorch Coyote is a changer of a finishing hole, on probably the most frustrating course under 5000' you've ever played. Believe me the pic doesn't do this little 220 downhill hole justice. The gap looks wider than it actually is. Talk about testing your ability to throw dead straight? If you hit a tree inside the gap the likelihood of getting out is low and the likelihood of ricocheting to a spot you can't get up & down from is somewhere around 70% or slightly more. A few years ago, players who were in a close scoring match would literally get to 18, and not wanting to bogey on the end, throw the 300+' thumber over (you can't see from the pic) just to get out of that mini-tunnel and escape with a par 3. So, the next tournament the TD had gotten on a ladder and hung a rope way up there at the top of those tree and made it a "stay under mando," saying you can still throw an overhand shot but you just couldn't go over those trees. He had designed that short "birdie hole" to MAKE people throw down the mini-tunnel and he didn't like that the over-handers were defeating his design. UH, well imho THAT reasoning is the issue. Even though working in my favor I told the TD I didn't like that at all. If a player has a throw he can use, he should be able to. David had his hole originally designed that way with the skip up mound or whatever you call it on that hole. He didn't ADD the skip up mound after seeing players defeat his design tourney after tourney. That to me is very different. And different from the roller blockers, aka RPGs, that were used at the OTB Open. And very different from either your hole above or David's hole described previously.

The designer may not have designed the hole with a go-under mando, but by this logic no disc golf course can ever change away from the original design. He also didn't design the hole with trees that large, they've grown at least somewhat over the years. I'm not sure I understand the argument/logic of "we have to play courses the way they were originally design...to heck with what might have been the intent, to heck with improvements, it has to be original and stay that way forever". Who cares one bit how a designer "originally" had a hole designed? The goal is to make things better. If you want to argue that adding a go-under mando isn't better...then that's fine. Arguing that it's somehow wrong because TDs are changing a designer's original layout is silly. If a design is bad or lacking...it SHOULD be changed. Argue that the mando is less desirable based on the merits of it, not because we should all be lazy and refuse to improve things.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Well, Doof, from the context of that response, it seems you made some assumptions about my reasoning.

No, your reasoning was on full display.

I've never said it was "unfair".

Nor did I accuse you of that.

So, why don't you change the subject . . .

What seems to me to be "out of whack" is when TDs (typically not designers, but occasionally) do something to a course via tournament regulation . . . .

I don't think the hole above is unfair at all.

Nor did I accuse you of that.

That design doesn't prohibit attacking the shot a certain way, based upon their skill. For example, if a player has the ability to throw an overhand shot that he knows will land straight ahead (whether he makes the green of not) that design isn't stopping him.

There is no realistic route on that hole that goes over the trees. So, while a player may throw "overhand," he'd better keep it very low. This design doesn't prevent any particular throwing style, but it does prohibit any type of high throw and any throw that goes right of the mando.

What WOULD be artificial and unfair imho . . .

You seem to equate these two things. The first word, "artificial," in the sense you are using it, has no real objective meaning. Your use of the word unfair, inasmuch as you seem to be conflating it with "artificial" doesn't seem to be used with a commonly accepted meaning in a competitive context. If everyone has to play the same hole, laid out in the same way and subject to the same rules, there is no inherent unfairness. If a player can only throw overhead shots or RHFH or rollers, or any single type of shot with accuracy, a hole is not unfair because it prevents that shot. The player just has a limited skillset. If that player accepts that, then he is a gracious competitor who probably recognizes his limitations and understands that he isn't going to win any tournaments with just a thumber/RHFH/roller type of throw. If, on the other hand, he blames the course designer, tournament director, weather, or anything else, then he is a whiner.

I am attaching an example. Hole 18 at Lester Lorch Coyote is a changer of a finishing hole, on probably the most frustrating course under 5000' you've ever played. Believe me the pic doesn't do this little 220 downhill hole justice. The gap looks wider than it actually is. Talk about testing your ability to throw dead straight? If you hit a tree inside the gap the likelihood of getting out is low and the likelihood of ricocheting to a spot you can't get up & down from is somewhere around 70% or slightly more. A few years ago, players who were in a close scoring match would literally get to 18, and not wanting to bogey on the end, throw the 300+' thumber over (you can't see from the pic) just to get out of that mini-tunnel and escape with a par 3. So, the next tournament the TD had gotten on a ladder and hung a rope way up there at the top of those tree and made it a "stay under mando," saying you can still throw an overhand shot but you just couldn't go over those trees. He had designed that short "birdie hole" to MAKE people throw down the mini-tunnel and he didn't like that the over-handers were defeating his design. UH, well imho THAT reasoning is the issue. Even though working in my favor I told the TD I didn't like that at all. If a player has a throw he can use, he should be able to. David had his hole originally designed that way with the skip up mound or whatever you call it on that hole. He didn't ADD the skip up mound after seeing players defeat his design tourney after tourney. That to me is very different. And different from the roller blockers, aka RPGs, that were used at the OTB Open. And very different from either your hole above or David's hole described previously.

You seem to want to argue specific holes for no reason closely associated with the issue of entitled, whiny, one-trick-pony disc golfers. I used my specific hole only as an example of the fact that players will call a hole unfair just because they refuse to play it in a way makes any sense in competition. 50% of the throws on that hole go OB left into or across the ditch when it is an easy layup and par if you don't have a throw that will park the hole. Some of those people will blame the mando instead of their poor decision making skills. In any event, what I take as the only meaningful thing that you posted in that last paragraph is the following.

If a player has a throw he can use, he should be able to.

You're just wrong on the sentiment behind this - as poorly stated as it is. Many designers/TDs will layout/configure some of the holes on a course to test specific skills because they want that skill to help determine the winner. I know of one hole that, thanks to a mando and the physics of disc flight, the circle can only be reached (or even closely approached) by a roller. There's no good reason that anyone should be able to give themselve a legitimate birdie look with any other throw just as there is no good reason to mourn any players inability to perform a specific throw called for by a specific hole.

If a player can't perform a throw that a hole calls for, he should learn how to do it or just graciously accept that the world doesn't owe him an opportunity to be successful doing something different.

 

[araytx]

The designer may not have designed the hole with a go-under mando, but by this logic no disc golf course can ever change away from the original design. He also didn't design the hole with trees that large, they've grown at least somewhat over the years. I'm not sure I understand the argument/logic of "we have to play courses the way they were originally design...to heck with what might have been the intent, to heck with improvements, it has to be original and stay that way forever". Who cares one bit how a designer "originally" had a hole designed? The goal is to make things better. If you want to argue that adding a go-under mando isn't better...then that's fine. Arguing that it's somehow wrong because TDs are changing a designer's original layout is silly. If a design is bad or lacking...it SHOULD be changed. Argue that the mando is less desirable based on the merits of it, not because we should all be lazy and refuse to improve things.

The crux of my argument was not WHAT or the reasoning, not at all. It was the WHY said TD chose the make the change. I hope I did a good job of focusing on that. On most of the points, I personally agree with you. Never said holes shouldn't be strived to be improved.
I've said repeatedly that I disagree with taking an option a player has away from him JUST BECAUSE THE TD DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS HOW HE (THE TD) WANTED THE HOLE TO BE PLAYED.

No, your reasoning was on full display.



Nor did I accuse you of that.

So, why don't you change the subject . . .







Nor did I accuse you of that.


...

IMHO, you DID misinterpret those things. You seem to believe from the way you wrote in the above replies that I was speaking directly about you or I was claiming you or someone was saying I said something was unfair. I did not; I was merely referencing that you had utilized the word ([unfair, in quotation marks) in that prior post. There was no judgment at all; yet you seem to reply as if I were making a judgment ("...I did not accuse you of...," "[n]or did I accuse..."). Again, there was no judgment intended on my part, merely a reference to what you had stated previously.

P.S. Notice how I use the expression "In my opinion...", as in, not stating some opinion of mine as if it were a fact; but rather it is one person's thoughts and assessment (mine). I believe it takes data to make something a definitive fact.

You seem to equate these two things. The first word, "artificial," in the sense you are using it, has no real objective meaning. Your use of the word unfair, inasmuch as you seem to be conflating it with "artificial" doesn't seem to be used with a commonly accepted meaning in a competitive context. If everyone has to play the same hole, laid out in the same way and subject to the same rules, there is no inherent unfairness. If a player can only throw overhead shots or RHFH or rollers, or any single type of shot with accuracy, a hole is not unfair because it prevents that shot. The player just has a limited skillset. If that player accepts that, then he is a gracious competitor who probably recognizes his limitations and understands that he isn't going to win any tournaments with just a thumber/RHFH/roller type of throw. If, on the other hand, he blames the course designer, tournament director, weather, or anything else, then he is a whiner.



You seem to want to argue specific holes for no reason closely associated with the issue of entitled, whiny, one-trick-pony disc golfers. I used my specific hole only as an example of the fact that players will call a hole unfair just because they refuse to play it in a way makes any sense in competition. 50% of the throws on that hole go OB left into or across the ditch when it is an easy layup and par if you don't have a throw that will park the hole. Some of those people will blame the mando instead of their poor decision making skills. In any event, what I take as the only meaningful thing that you posted in that last paragraph is the following.

I get that. And I understand that. Not sure what made you consider that I might not.


{QUOTE=Doofenshmirtz;3815941]You're just wrong on the sentiment behind this - as poorly stated as it is. Many designers/TDs will layout/configure some of the holes on a course to test specific skills because they want that skill to help determine the winner. I know of one hole that, thanks to a mando and the physics of disc flight, the circle can only be reached (or even closely approached) by a roller. There's no good reason that anyone should be able to give themselve a legitimate birdie look with any other throw just as there is no good reason to mourn any players inability to perform a specific throw called for by a specific hole.

If a player can't perform a throw that a hole calls for, he should learn how to do it or just graciously accept that the world doesn't owe him an opportunity to be successful doing something different.[/QUOTE]

Wow. A "direct judgment" of my opinion, to go along with telling me my English lacks quality. Just wow. I guess I'll leave what qualifications I might have, and move on to the next topic. This is it for me here.

 

[dmoore1998]

I've said repeatedly that I disagree with taking an option a player has away from him JUST BECAUSE THE TD DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS HOW HE (THE TD) WANTED THE HOLE TO BE PLAYED.

My point is that the argument should be why the change is a poor one...not that you just disagree with the TD changing things as a general rule. You're arguing against the TD making changes, as opposed to arguing why this particular change makes the hole worse.

Arguing against the general theory that TDs shouldn't change holes because of how the TD wants the hole to be played is simply an argument against all changes, including changes which make a hole better. TDs are de facto course designers for the tournaments they direct.

Maybe it is better expressed as a question: Who can/should make changes based on the way they want the hole to be played once the initial design is done? That's what course design is...so who should be allowed to make changes they see as improvements after that initial design occurs?