Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Just posting what we've learned to evaluate numbers when you've tried to tweak a hole so it works better for risk/reward.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
2015 Ledgestone NT presented by Discraft
- Thread starter JohtoVillage
- Start date
I thought the final 9 temp course looked great. A good choice for fans to watch disc golf. But as a fan I have to say it was disappointing to see so many people lay up or even just throw a jump putt off the tee. Some of the lines on the shots were cool to watch and I wanted to see these guys throw those shots. Like the shot through the bridge that McCray parked ( but was the only one to even attempt it).... and the shot down hill toward the water that everyone just leisurely tossed into the sand. I think the greens being too small is the main reason for such conservative play. I think the stroke and distance rule adds to the mental aspect of the game, but if the greens are unfairly small or difficult then it just makes it kind of boring to watch.
notroman
* Ace Member *
I don't think the greens were too small (except maybe hole 10 at Lake Eureka). Hole 5 at Northwoods was also a bit too small to land on considering the hardpack around the basket, but there was always the option to lay up to the middle island and take par. In practice, they were all pretty straight forward to reach. In tournaments it's another story. I think the biggest contributing factor to the layups in the final 9 was the wind. Once the wind kicks up and you add stroke+distance to the mix then it's foolish to run the green. The bridge hole had a pretty decent L-R tailwind which would drop most drives to the green short of the island, the water tower hole had a pretty good headwind that you couldn't feel off the tee but it stalled and pushed back any nose up drives and turned over any nose down drive. Not an easy green to reach even without wind. Props to Paige Pierce.
notroman
* Ace Member *
The few comments I heard from the am side about that hole were that "you either got a 2 or a 4". The ams felt the island was too small.
warstar011
Newbie
The island was small for the difficulty of the shot and the visibility of the OB lines. What makes USDGC 17 great is you can see the island and most of the in bounds area and there is a "safe play" that was usually a 3, but sometimes a 2 or 4. If the back side OB line on that hole was pushed back about 20-30 feet it would give players a safer chance at the green while giving a long put for 2. I think this adds a lot to the hole because it makes the player choose to run a put and possibly go OB or lay up for the 3. This is all dependant on how well the drive was executed. Just like 17.
I would like to commend the TD on not only responding to the many comments about this temp course, but being willing to frankly say which holes he felt didn't work as designed, and doing statistical analysis to make them better next year.
Considering how much work this tournament must've been to run, your committment to transparency both here and elsewhere can really help others learn about what you were trying to do an foster more productive discussions about course design and very real questions about the difficult balancing act that is: how do we challenge these top pros, without making the holes punitive or impossible/lucky for lower divisons?
I also think you are spot-on with your goal of challenging the top players mentally and forcing them to make choices, instead of just having courses where they can realistically go for on every hole with low risk.
It seems to me like you certainly succeeded in challenging even the top pros with this Temp layout, and the creative use of OB. Looking at the course caddy, I also think there are some holes where the OB seemed excessive, so Im glad you analyzing the scores and are willing to make changes next year. I hear you on the "if landing zone gets bigger, basket island gets smaller" because jsut making both bigger would just nerf the holes and thus less interesting for challenging top pros.
Just an idea, perhaps if the shapes of these zones where changed, rather than just bigger or smaller, you could still achieve desired results for pros, and maybe make the holes less lucky and even more enjoyable for more divisions. Like maybe rectangle/teardrop shaped instead of square
One thatcomes to my mind maybe add a skinny landing zone along the fence before the corner on baseball hole, which allows lower power (or non-flick) players to have a choice at a shorter carry, but knowing that the follow-up is a tomahawk over the corner of fence to get to second landing zone or basket? Take that "extra stroke" to play it safer vs
Male Open players probably wont go for short LZ because it would make for a tough upshot for a difficult 3, and they can more reliably carry to current drop zone, so wont neccesarilly even change the hole for them. For the other divisons, it would add more risk/reward opps, becasue a 300+ft water/OB carry is even less of a sure thing, so some can choose to go safer and try to play for a conservative 4, instead of just having to keep reteeing to hit the long carry thats closer to edge of their distance than for top pros. Even if most still choose to go for it, at least their scoring spreads on the hole will be result of that decision vs the forced carry w no alternatives.
Considering how much work this tournament must've been to run, your committment to transparency both here and elsewhere can really help others learn about what you were trying to do an foster more productive discussions about course design and very real questions about the difficult balancing act that is: how do we challenge these top pros, without making the holes punitive or impossible/lucky for lower divisons?
I also think you are spot-on with your goal of challenging the top players mentally and forcing them to make choices, instead of just having courses where they can realistically go for on every hole with low risk.
It seems to me like you certainly succeeded in challenging even the top pros with this Temp layout, and the creative use of OB. Looking at the course caddy, I also think there are some holes where the OB seemed excessive, so Im glad you analyzing the scores and are willing to make changes next year. I hear you on the "if landing zone gets bigger, basket island gets smaller" because jsut making both bigger would just nerf the holes and thus less interesting for challenging top pros.
Just an idea, perhaps if the shapes of these zones where changed, rather than just bigger or smaller, you could still achieve desired results for pros, and maybe make the holes less lucky and even more enjoyable for more divisions. Like maybe rectangle/teardrop shaped instead of square
One thatcomes to my mind maybe add a skinny landing zone along the fence before the corner on baseball hole, which allows lower power (or non-flick) players to have a choice at a shorter carry, but knowing that the follow-up is a tomahawk over the corner of fence to get to second landing zone or basket? Take that "extra stroke" to play it safer vs
Male Open players probably wont go for short LZ because it would make for a tough upshot for a difficult 3, and they can more reliably carry to current drop zone, so wont neccesarilly even change the hole for them. For the other divisons, it would add more risk/reward opps, becasue a 300+ft water/OB carry is even less of a sure thing, so some can choose to go safer and try to play for a conservative 4, instead of just having to keep reteeing to hit the long carry thats closer to edge of their distance than for top pros. Even if most still choose to go for it, at least their scoring spreads on the hole will be result of that decision vs the forced carry w no alternatives.
Last edited:
pappabearlee
Par Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 201
Nate did an amazing job.
Largest payout in history, 20k to st judes, Paiges ace made #1 on sport center.
So a few holes were a hassle.
Is this really what people are focusing on from this event?
Not the historic positives?
Sad state of affairs that it was even mentioned, much less that it has over shadowed real growth.
I would be surprised if Nate ever runs another event after the way he was treated.
Until someone raises 125k for a tournament they have zero place trying to judge what Nate has done or speak about it.
So many ungrateful people spreading negativity and wasting time.
That in a nut shell is how we hold the sport back.
Largest payout in history, 20k to st judes, Paiges ace made #1 on sport center.
So a few holes were a hassle.
Is this really what people are focusing on from this event?
Not the historic positives?
Sad state of affairs that it was even mentioned, much less that it has over shadowed real growth.
I would be surprised if Nate ever runs another event after the way he was treated.
Until someone raises 125k for a tournament they have zero place trying to judge what Nate has done or speak about it.
So many ungrateful people spreading negativity and wasting time.
That in a nut shell is how we hold the sport back.
Tim_the_Enchanter
Birdie Member
I agree with your sentiment, but fundraising and course design are entirely two different arenas.
agree.
I hope this doesnt come across snarky...I dont mean it to be... I dont know how the Ledgestone was organized and manned...
The TD that is doing a great job fundraising and making a great tournament might want to consider turning over design to a reputable designer. There are plenty out there that would help with that task. Not every aspect has to be home grown. Again, please forgive the next comment, it is not intended to be inflammatory. It was very evident to many people that a few of the holes (and their rules) simply didnt work. Someone not so close to the heart of the event might have caught those things well in advance. It seems like there were some rule changes (DZ on 17) which was the right thing to do, however seem completely obvious to outsiders looking in that should be the rule there or the hole not created.
There were a number of missed opportunities that seemed glaringly obvious to most players at Am worlds too...I just wonder if TD's get so attached/overwhelmed to/with the event that they cant see the trees through the forest. Hole 8 and 18 at Vicksburg where the longs were in the fairway of adjoining holes for example.
I guess in the end its just nitpicking but sometimes its the small things that count the most to people, not the large undertaking of a Worlds or the largest payout tournament, etc.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 441
I had a reputable course designer look at the course with me and offer suggestions. I took some of his suggestions, I went with some of my own suggestions and came up with what I did. No course is perfect, especially one that pushes the envelope for what players are used to. I will say that I rejected a few of his ideas that I will end up using for the tweaked redesign. But as I have stated before, I was trying to push the players and really wanted to offer something different. I also wanted to severely punish bad shots, hints the stroke and distance. I appreciate the feedback. At the same time, people that say its the "worst course of all time" or that the course "needs a complete redesign" are not being true to the course. I heard many good things about a lot of the holes and as I said, only 4 or 5 holes didn't play the way they were intended.
teemkey
* Ace Member *
Version 1.0 invariably has problems. As Nate said in an earlier post, the pre-tournament weather prevented testing hole layouts. Yes, there were many complaints, but that's to be expected with more on the line.
The huge payout is a model for making disc golf a viable profession for more top pros -- as well as professional TDs.
The huge payout is a model for making disc golf a viable profession for more top pros -- as well as professional TDs.
Version 1.0 invariably has problems. As Nate said in an earlier post, the pre-tournament weather prevented testing hole layouts. Yes, there were many complaints, but that's to be expected with more on the line.
The huge payout is a model for making disc golf a viable profession for more top pros -- as well as professional TDs.
Some layouts dont need to be tested for people to know they are a bad idea. Most people on here knew that just from the caddy book. Why is a tournament director testing holes. They have so much to do, seems like something you could delegate.
Edit: Got my answer to this. Thanks!
Last edited:
I know it can be difficult, but try to not let the naysayers bother you too much. You have already stated you are going to analyze things and make changes/improvements for next year. Trust me, I know. I have several people, who NEVER show up for work days at a local course, telling me what we should do.
Thanks, for the clarification. I didnt know the process you followed, good job then. No worries as a course designer and builder, I have heard the same thing. Avery called one of the courses I spent the most time on the worst he has ever played. Paul McBeth said that it was the most fair and best he played in his 2012 championship run. So let it roll off your back if possible. Thanks again for all the hard work.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 441
We tested it with a preview event and then made changes. And then the weather stepped in and dramatically altered the bridge hole to where I couldn't test it.
When you are using stroke and distance and ropes, its incredibly important to test things out.
As for delegating it, course design is one of the most important things for any major event. I wanted to be involved in the process as that is what people remember - the courses. I hope to have the score analysis done soon!
bballr4567
Eagle Member
I loved the bridge hole the most. I just went and rewatched the final 9 again for both. Watching Weese struggle so much with the tunnel aspect of it was brutal but it shows how well that hole was actually constructed.
I wish the drop zone didn't include the down slope of actual ground and would have been just a postage stamp area as well. That would have made things REALLY interesting.
I wish the drop zone didn't include the down slope of actual ground and would have been just a postage stamp area as well. That would have made things REALLY interesting.
notroman
* Ace Member *
FWIW hole 11 at Lake Eureka Temp was a fantastic par 4. Don't change it I can play that hole over and over.
I can play that hole over and over.- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 441
Yeah, as I said, I believe most of the holes at the course were fine.
In fact, I think all four of the par 4's were awesome and the par 5 was awesome. I designed these holes with the intention of making par a good score. I really don't have much to change on those holes. Its really hard to design a good par 5, but I think we did a good job with #2. I know it could be considered boring to layup on the second shot, but that's just strategy to me. Some people went for it (Ricky, JohnE) and it didn't work out.
vanparty
Newbie
John E on Eureaka
OK, been reading most of this thread and might as well throw in my own $.02 even if it's a little late and has already been discussed to death...
I was standing roughly 5 to 10 feet from where John E's drive on Eureaka #2 came to rest. It DID 100% hit a spectator who was lying down. He was lying with his head by the OB rope and John E's purple World (I think it was a World anyways, definitely purple) hit him in his polo shirt where it was loosely over-hanging his waistband. There was a brief "That didn't hit anybody" discussion by those in the vicinity. When a TD came up and asked for clarification, the consensus was "No, that didn't hit anybody". I'm not even sure how many people standing right there knew it had actually hit him but I would guess not that many actually. I didn't say anything but I could have and this is why…
Even if it didn't hit the kid, I'm just a hair shy of completely positive that it would have stayed OB due to its speed, the length of the grass and the angle it had hit the ground. Can you ever be 100% sure? No, but from all of the discs I've ever seen thrown, there was no way that was going to roll or skip in bounds. It's just too bad that he let it affect his game that way.
That being said, this was my first NT and I had a blast and I can't wait to do another one! Can't believe how much planning and effort went in to making something like that come to fruition!
OK, been reading most of this thread and might as well throw in my own $.02 even if it's a little late and has already been discussed to death...
I was standing roughly 5 to 10 feet from where John E's drive on Eureaka #2 came to rest. It DID 100% hit a spectator who was lying down. He was lying with his head by the OB rope and John E's purple World (I think it was a World anyways, definitely purple) hit him in his polo shirt where it was loosely over-hanging his waistband. There was a brief "That didn't hit anybody" discussion by those in the vicinity. When a TD came up and asked for clarification, the consensus was "No, that didn't hit anybody". I'm not even sure how many people standing right there knew it had actually hit him but I would guess not that many actually. I didn't say anything but I could have and this is why…
Even if it didn't hit the kid, I'm just a hair shy of completely positive that it would have stayed OB due to its speed, the length of the grass and the angle it had hit the ground. Can you ever be 100% sure? No, but from all of the discs I've ever seen thrown, there was no way that was going to roll or skip in bounds. It's just too bad that he let it affect his game that way.
That being said, this was my first NT and I had a blast and I can't wait to do another one! Can't believe how much planning and effort went in to making something like that come to fruition!
Last edited:
notroman
* Ace Member *
I was standing up on the playground behind you guys and also saw the same thing. I let the assistant TD know in private that I saw the disc hit the kid laying down.
Similar threads
