A case for disc rollback

Awkward Accountant

Bogey Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2022
For those of us who don't follow professional golf, they are reducing the distance that golf balls travel in competitive play. Courses are finding modern technology to not be sustainable as there is a need for longer courses.
Can disc golf take a lesson from this? Early on 450' used to be a considered a long hole. Now its common to see pros biride 1100' holes. We are forcing modern courses to become longer which increases environmental damage and build costs. We are seeing double digit negative scores nearly every tournament. Is it time to take a lesson from golf and baseball and limit the technologies for professional players?
 
I think the main reason ball golf is looking at this because most courses don't have the room to expand, not necessarily to keep scores down.
Yes, players are definitely hitting the ball a lot farther than a generation ago.
 
For those of us who don't follow professional golf, they are reducing the distance that golf balls travel in competitive play. Courses are finding modern technology to not be sustainable as there is a need for longer courses.
Can disc golf take a lesson from this? Early on 450' used to be a considered a long hole. Now its common to see pros biride 1100' holes. We are forcing modern courses to become longer which increases environmental damage and build costs. We are seeing double digit negative scores nearly every tournament. Is it time to take a lesson from golf and baseball and limit the technologies for professional players?
Put more stuff that grows in the way, so ACCURACY is what is actually being rewarded. It helps nature in the long run to have more stuff in the way as well. And also, monoculture is what people who hate nature think is the right solution. These people are dumb.
 
I think the main reason ball golf is looking at this because most courses don't have the room to expand, not necessarily to keep scores down.
Yes, players are definitely hitting the ball a lot farther than a generation ago.
There's a reason why woods golf is superior, and a better viewing experience for the consumer over the hyzer festival bomber ball golf track, and that's because you need to be able to hit a line, and also a gap at distance for ANY prowess for going far to be meaningful. You don't need gimmick and hard to see OB lines with woods golf. No maintenance of grass types, and destroying the soil underneath with monoculture bs. You just play from the rough, and get worked and also ate up by disturbing a bees nest.
 
I do think we will (and have seen) a rise in the % of shorter, family-friendly courses. Especially in private communities and schools. I think keeps any sort of "national average hole distance" about the same as it was 15 years ago.
 
I do think we will (and have seen) a rise in the % of shorter, family-friendly courses. Especially in private communities and schools. I think keeps any sort of "national average hole distance" about the same as it was 15 years ago.
Definitely happening in my area.
 
I think that cat is out of the bag (Edit - maybe I should have said that ship has sailed) . I do find it interesting that one of the longer throwers out there, Simon Lizotte, has repeatedly said that the long courses on golf courses are too boring, and he would like to see more technical shorter courses on tour that require the use of mid-ranges and putters more.

I don't know how sincere he is, but I am sure others have expressed similar ideas as you are proposing.
 
Last edited:
Meh. I don't really even think you can regulate it in the same way. I don't play ball golf, but there isn't anything equivalent to a 'line' is there?

This problem can be 100% handled with course design, which is something ball golf cannot do in the same way.

Maybe I'm wrong and the equivalent of disc golf lines exist with a ball and club...but I don't see how!
 
The way to handle it, is to get our game the hell off of golf courses, and onto wooded courses, or at least courses that strike a reasonable balance between wooded and open holes.
 
Last edited:
Maple Hill Gold layout used in the DGPT is around 8800 feet with a par of 60 and is considered one of the top courses in the country. Simon told me his favorite layout at Maple Hill is Red at 4200 feet. The shortest layouts in many towns are the most popular since more people can get birdies and ace runs. And yet, many people with little or no design experience lobbying for or installing courses want to design or create the next long "championship" course even though few if any on their own has proven to be financially viable without other shorter layouts and/or activities also on site.
 
Last edited:
I think that cat is out of the bag. I do find it interesting that one of the longer throwers out there, Simon Lizotte, has repeatedly said that the long courses on golf courses are too boring, and he would like to see more technical shorter courses on tour that require the use of mid-ranges and putters more.

I don't know how sincere he is, but I am sure others have expressed similar ideas as you are proposing.
The other thing that is happening and will continue to while distance is emphasized and rewarded over hitting an annoyingly specific line, or touch, and accuracy is that the long bomber intensive courses will continue to tear players up.
 
Maple Hill Gold layout used in the DGPT is around 8800 feet with a par of 60 and is considered one of the top courses in the country. Simon told me his favorite layout at Maple Hill is Red at 4200 feet. The shortest layouts in many towns are the most popular since more people can get birdies and ace runs. And yet, many people with little or no design experience lobbying for or installing courses want to design or create the next long "championship" course even though few if any on their own has proven to be financially viable without other layouts and/or activities also on site.
Red has pretty much no water in play and is pretty toothless. Really surprising that would be his (of all people) favorite layout.

White at least keeps some of the character of the longer layouts, while still being approachable by rec players. I played white and would have played blue or gold over red if I'd had time for a 2nd round.

I agree with your point, but that comment was surprising.
 
Red has pretty much no water in play and is pretty toothless. Really surprising that would be his (of all people) favorite layout.

White at least keeps some of the character of the longer layouts, while still being approachable by rec players. I played white and would have played blue or gold over red if I'd had time for a 2nd round.

I agree with your point, but that comment was surprising.
One reason for Red is Glitches don't float ;) Another to consider for the majority of non-competition players who work is simply limited time to play a round, especially when forced to squeeze it in after work. That's a lesser recognized element that broadly favors shorter courses.
 
Gold level, +10,000 foot courses are fine for pros, but I have no desire to see one in my area. Even when I did play Maple Hill & Idlewild I didn't play the pro configuration as I had no desire to destroy my arm throwing as hard as I could every time.
I agree that the pendulum is swinging back on the push for championship level courses!
Give me a 5,000-6,000' wooded course anyday!
 
It seems like a constant battle for our club, in my area, to fight against "gold level" courses. Not only does it seem EVERY new course proposal have "championship level" aspirations, we face suggestions and attempts to turn current intermediate/beginner technical courses, into huge monstrosities via redesign. I can't tell you the number of times we have given the "disc golf community" speech. Encouraging other clubs and entities to consider the entire scope of players. From families with kids, to chuckers, to casuals, to ams and to pros.
 
It seems like a constant battle for our club, in my area, to fight against "gold level" courses. Not only does it seem EVERY new course proposal have "championship level" aspirations, we face suggestions and attempts to turn current intermediate/beginner technical courses, into huge monstrosities via redesign. I can't tell you the number of times we have given the "disc golf community" speech. Encouraging other clubs and entities to consider the entire scope of players. From families with kids, to chuckers, to casuals, to ams and to pros.
The coolest thing about watching all these pro's who can absolutely demolish a disc out 600 feet, and can devour a 1110 par 5 is when they have to use touch on something that is barely 200' normal person golf, and THEY CAN'T.
The gist of a hole that just has to be Par 5 is basically stupid, and arrogant. They aren't really all that fun to watch. And, I would except for the players on cards with those who are throwing things out like sprinklers that they are very time consuming.
 

Latest posts

Top