I recently had a discussion regarding course designs I've done, and some behind the scenes feedback and gripes others have heard. The discussion really centered around preferences, but negative feedback really does make an impact on me. I have reasons for almost every decision I've made, so my responses are easy to spit out. But they're still based on some assumption, preference, or other criteria which may or may not be easily defendable or debatable. At the least, these reasons are unknown to general players and thus their feedback seems overly negative at times. Because of this, I have begun providing hole by hole designer notes for all designs I complete to the property owners. This helps summarize the thought process and decisions made, making it easier to defend, rebut, or reply to feedback received. I also think it's just human nature. When I receive positive feedback it often does not lead to thought provoking discussion like negative feedback does.
So back on track, before I post the novel of my "summary" of these discussions, I'd like to know what the other designers out there think of themselves, what they think of feedback they receive, and even how they've evolved as designers. What do you designers think of your designs and the feedback you get?
I do take it personal when people attack me and not the design. However, I know everyone has their own opinions and am fine without 100% agreement that holes I've laid out are the "best". Course design is both a skill and an art, and preferences are subjective. I mostly tend to design courses that feature a variety of holes, i.e. holes in which the tee shots require many specific flights off the tee, and then I ensure to provide balanced tee shots that encompass varying degrees of length, width, curvature, open versus wooded airways, and elevation. These collection of holes guarantee that players will be forced out of their comfort zones at some point because I strive for so much unique use of the land and variety of tee shot selection. I think if the same naysayers would walk the course with me and listen to the enthusiasm in the explanation of my design intent, they'd see things different. But then again some people perpetually complain, and also don't like to be challenged or strive to become better. I take these gripes with a grain of salt, but they also fuel me. I like to hear that a design I have created frustrates players. This is because I have not designed a hole where I cannot execute a successful tee-shot, and the frustration is simply the result of being unable to overcome the challenge. Sometimes that challenge is mental, sometimes it is a physical challenge, and physical challenges may actually be every present due to skill based tee design concepts that I utilize. Some holes are designed with a long tee (Blue, Black, or Gold level) such that an amateur or lesser skilled player may never be able to surmount the obstacle presented until additional skills are learned and mastered. I am very much an advocate of risk versus reward, but maybe not in the traditional sense. My reward is that you can navigate the 'airway' of the holes if you've risked throwing a variety of tee shots you may not have been comfortable with and may have had to work on. I also love risky greens. While making a straight ahead 40-50' flat putt is indeed a skill, I seriously doubt even the top players would run at the chains if a water hazard or hill was behind the basket. A mental putting game is a huge input into my designs. My skill level is nowhere near that of top level pros, but I pride myself on accuracy and a calm mental game. I pride myself not on being the best designer (I would hardly say so), but on accomplishing a very specific goal on almost every hole due to very unique and often never before seen details. In no way do I strive to design a monster course that will challenge all the pros who can throw 500'+ and make 9 of 10 putts from over 30' away. I design courses to appeal to players of varying skill levels, both visually and mentally. I actually don't even look at course design from an entire course perspective. I lay out each individual hole at a time and try to do something unique, different, an balanced. Then I move to the next hole from there based on features of the land, trying to maximize unique and majestic areas of the property. The hard part is working in all the neat holes I want to do into a logically flowing design. One issue I do admit to as a flaw that I tend to face is that my designs can get crowded in some areas, but I still try to minimize any overlap 90% of the time. I will never cross fairways and will never play arrange parallel fairways without a natural obstacle in between. The cramped designs may be an intended consequence of wanting to utilize the best terrain to its fullest, or they are often the simple result of having to design within the restrictions of a given piece of property. Good throws do not lead to cramping in my designs. Bad throws might, it depends on how bad but then again, you can't design to accommodate the 10% of horribly bad throws! In earlier designs, I have not typically incorporated longer par 4 or more holes and given the right property, but I have attempted to retrofit some into older designs. Some of these have yielded amazing holes, while some have introduced that dreaded cramping I mentioned due to squeezing in another tee 100-250' away but within the existing framework of the course. My latest designs are attempting to incorporate longer holes and more par 4 or strategic placement and risk/reward holes but it is of course dependent on the skill level of the player and features of the land. Let's say primarily I design for Blue level players and shoot for an SSA of around 58 on a 18 hole course. I also think it is vital to have shorter red tees so that lesser skilled players are able to enjoy the designs without as much frustration.
So, what much of the discussion boiled down to is the misinterpretation of my design intent. At the basic level, it is NOT to appease everyone, but to challenge everyone. I prefer to not have multiple options on so many holes. With multiple options, weaker players will simply throw what they are comfortable with. I want players to become more rounded and try new and creative ways to navigate a hole, even if it includes laying up. Where this comes mostly into play is on wooded holes where only occasionally do I throw in multiple routes if the terrain yields something neat. In my designs, you are going to have to throw 6 different tee shots in the woods. They would be…
1) Long and Straight
2) Long and finishing Left
3) Long and finishing Right
4) Short and Straight
5) Short and finishing Left
6) Short and finishing Right
If you were to add elevation to the mix, you can see how it would mix up the combinations with these same variations on 'Uphill' and 'Downhill' holes. The same variation applies with open holes, but open holes don't force too many specific tee shots, so I try and incorporate length and OB into that mix so that where your drive finishes will matter. So, just being given a patch of woods, I will churn out 6 different holes for you, if there is a field surrounding those woods then you can add 6 more different holes that border or play into/out of the woods. Another key factor missed in the discussion is that my designs focus on minimalist construction methods. It has been my entire experience that the courses are installed and created using whatever makeshift set of tools a small group of local voluteers have had access to. So, major clearing of 2-3 distinct 20-30' wide 300' long fairways wasn't less than a daunting task. No heavy equipment, no machinery, no power augers, at times no chainsaws, and in the early days no motorized vehicles [Winter Park holes 1-18 were created without a chainsaw, all holes hand dug, no ATV for hauling, etc. Those baskets and 100# of concrete were carried by hand up the hills!]
Well-rounded players highly enjoy my designs. Players who are constantly trying to execute a specific throw and overcome a challenge will love my designs. At Winter Park for example, on so many holes out there, I've seen player after player "empty their bags" on particular holes (more than half), trying to get that "just right" flight and see something amazing (that they think they can do, and that the hole design does allow for. While most of my hole designs will allow for those perfect and near perfect throws to yield an ace, they also abide by the bell curve in which 70% will encounter some obstacle or another and need some recovery. But remember that the bell curve also has a tail end in which the percentage of bad throws really get punished. However, because I prefer wooded courses and wooded hole designs (with 'specific' fairways as I mentioned above), on more occasions than you may like, your "near perfect" throw my clip a tree and enter a death spiral into the rough woods. In my mind, despite the fact that you thought it was a near perfect throw, it obviously wasn't. If you had let go a millisecond early, or with a half degree change in angle of release, or chosen a different disc, or thrown with more or less speed – the tree would not have been it. Here is my point – there are SO many variables in disc golf, embrace them, learn them, and conquer the challenges of hole design my mastering these variable! Don't get upset, get better, learn something new, try something different, become well balanced, and HAVE FUN!
So back on track, before I post the novel of my "summary" of these discussions, I'd like to know what the other designers out there think of themselves, what they think of feedback they receive, and even how they've evolved as designers. What do you designers think of your designs and the feedback you get?
I do take it personal when people attack me and not the design. However, I know everyone has their own opinions and am fine without 100% agreement that holes I've laid out are the "best". Course design is both a skill and an art, and preferences are subjective. I mostly tend to design courses that feature a variety of holes, i.e. holes in which the tee shots require many specific flights off the tee, and then I ensure to provide balanced tee shots that encompass varying degrees of length, width, curvature, open versus wooded airways, and elevation. These collection of holes guarantee that players will be forced out of their comfort zones at some point because I strive for so much unique use of the land and variety of tee shot selection. I think if the same naysayers would walk the course with me and listen to the enthusiasm in the explanation of my design intent, they'd see things different. But then again some people perpetually complain, and also don't like to be challenged or strive to become better. I take these gripes with a grain of salt, but they also fuel me. I like to hear that a design I have created frustrates players. This is because I have not designed a hole where I cannot execute a successful tee-shot, and the frustration is simply the result of being unable to overcome the challenge. Sometimes that challenge is mental, sometimes it is a physical challenge, and physical challenges may actually be every present due to skill based tee design concepts that I utilize. Some holes are designed with a long tee (Blue, Black, or Gold level) such that an amateur or lesser skilled player may never be able to surmount the obstacle presented until additional skills are learned and mastered. I am very much an advocate of risk versus reward, but maybe not in the traditional sense. My reward is that you can navigate the 'airway' of the holes if you've risked throwing a variety of tee shots you may not have been comfortable with and may have had to work on. I also love risky greens. While making a straight ahead 40-50' flat putt is indeed a skill, I seriously doubt even the top players would run at the chains if a water hazard or hill was behind the basket. A mental putting game is a huge input into my designs. My skill level is nowhere near that of top level pros, but I pride myself on accuracy and a calm mental game. I pride myself not on being the best designer (I would hardly say so), but on accomplishing a very specific goal on almost every hole due to very unique and often never before seen details. In no way do I strive to design a monster course that will challenge all the pros who can throw 500'+ and make 9 of 10 putts from over 30' away. I design courses to appeal to players of varying skill levels, both visually and mentally. I actually don't even look at course design from an entire course perspective. I lay out each individual hole at a time and try to do something unique, different, an balanced. Then I move to the next hole from there based on features of the land, trying to maximize unique and majestic areas of the property. The hard part is working in all the neat holes I want to do into a logically flowing design. One issue I do admit to as a flaw that I tend to face is that my designs can get crowded in some areas, but I still try to minimize any overlap 90% of the time. I will never cross fairways and will never play arrange parallel fairways without a natural obstacle in between. The cramped designs may be an intended consequence of wanting to utilize the best terrain to its fullest, or they are often the simple result of having to design within the restrictions of a given piece of property. Good throws do not lead to cramping in my designs. Bad throws might, it depends on how bad but then again, you can't design to accommodate the 10% of horribly bad throws! In earlier designs, I have not typically incorporated longer par 4 or more holes and given the right property, but I have attempted to retrofit some into older designs. Some of these have yielded amazing holes, while some have introduced that dreaded cramping I mentioned due to squeezing in another tee 100-250' away but within the existing framework of the course. My latest designs are attempting to incorporate longer holes and more par 4 or strategic placement and risk/reward holes but it is of course dependent on the skill level of the player and features of the land. Let's say primarily I design for Blue level players and shoot for an SSA of around 58 on a 18 hole course. I also think it is vital to have shorter red tees so that lesser skilled players are able to enjoy the designs without as much frustration.
So, what much of the discussion boiled down to is the misinterpretation of my design intent. At the basic level, it is NOT to appease everyone, but to challenge everyone. I prefer to not have multiple options on so many holes. With multiple options, weaker players will simply throw what they are comfortable with. I want players to become more rounded and try new and creative ways to navigate a hole, even if it includes laying up. Where this comes mostly into play is on wooded holes where only occasionally do I throw in multiple routes if the terrain yields something neat. In my designs, you are going to have to throw 6 different tee shots in the woods. They would be…
1) Long and Straight
2) Long and finishing Left
3) Long and finishing Right
4) Short and Straight
5) Short and finishing Left
6) Short and finishing Right
If you were to add elevation to the mix, you can see how it would mix up the combinations with these same variations on 'Uphill' and 'Downhill' holes. The same variation applies with open holes, but open holes don't force too many specific tee shots, so I try and incorporate length and OB into that mix so that where your drive finishes will matter. So, just being given a patch of woods, I will churn out 6 different holes for you, if there is a field surrounding those woods then you can add 6 more different holes that border or play into/out of the woods. Another key factor missed in the discussion is that my designs focus on minimalist construction methods. It has been my entire experience that the courses are installed and created using whatever makeshift set of tools a small group of local voluteers have had access to. So, major clearing of 2-3 distinct 20-30' wide 300' long fairways wasn't less than a daunting task. No heavy equipment, no machinery, no power augers, at times no chainsaws, and in the early days no motorized vehicles [Winter Park holes 1-18 were created without a chainsaw, all holes hand dug, no ATV for hauling, etc. Those baskets and 100# of concrete were carried by hand up the hills!]
Well-rounded players highly enjoy my designs. Players who are constantly trying to execute a specific throw and overcome a challenge will love my designs. At Winter Park for example, on so many holes out there, I've seen player after player "empty their bags" on particular holes (more than half), trying to get that "just right" flight and see something amazing (that they think they can do, and that the hole design does allow for. While most of my hole designs will allow for those perfect and near perfect throws to yield an ace, they also abide by the bell curve in which 70% will encounter some obstacle or another and need some recovery. But remember that the bell curve also has a tail end in which the percentage of bad throws really get punished. However, because I prefer wooded courses and wooded hole designs (with 'specific' fairways as I mentioned above), on more occasions than you may like, your "near perfect" throw my clip a tree and enter a death spiral into the rough woods. In my mind, despite the fact that you thought it was a near perfect throw, it obviously wasn't. If you had let go a millisecond early, or with a half degree change in angle of release, or chosen a different disc, or thrown with more or less speed – the tree would not have been it. Here is my point – there are SO many variables in disc golf, embrace them, learn them, and conquer the challenges of hole design my mastering these variable! Don't get upset, get better, learn something new, try something different, become well balanced, and HAVE FUN!
But since two people don't have much of a technical game? Don't have a reliable anhyzer or alley/tunnel shot off the tee? The course gets a reputation for being "too hard."
