• 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)

Does size matter?

I would rather play the higher-quality course because I assume this hypothetical course is not the only course on earth. I could always go somewhere else to throw farther.

If it were to be the only course I could play then I would have to think much harder about the problem.
 
There would still be open ended answers in the thread even if there was a poll.
In which case, why make one? The OP was asking for opinions, and there is really nothing to be gained by quantifying those, especially when neither of the would be options are ideal or would have to be resigned to in a real world situation.
 
I would rather play the higher-quality course because I assume this hypothetical course is not the only course on earth. I could always go somewhere else to throw farther.

If it were to be the only course I could play then I would have to think much harder about the problem.

The old diamond water paradox raises its head.

Given the choice between all the short well designed courses and all the long but poorly designed courses we know what we would pick.

But we are in real life faced with the choice of this course or that course, today.
 
I think a well designed course should make you use a variety of discs/shots off of the tee.

Some people like to bomb it. It's part of the game.

The short fun course sounds cool too but I bet I wouldn't play it too many times. Probably to tune up the short game or bring rookies out to play. Sounds like an executive course. I also bet people put up crappier scores than they thought even though every hole is a birdie hole. I wonder how golfers would handle being 5 under through 6 holes, oh the pressure.
 
In which case, why make one? The OP was asking for opinions, and there is really nothing to be gained by quantifying those, especially when neither of the would be options are ideal or would have to be resigned to in a real world situation.

I don't know, I just like polls lol
 
As a side note, Woodland Greens (237 ft avg) at Highbridge may have the most rounds played on it of the 5 hill courses with Blueberry Hill (340-365 ft avg) a close second. Chestnut Grove, the original 9-hole course by the campground (234 ft avg), easily has had the most rounds played there.
 
Last edited:
I love long holes, but played a course recently that was that BS mediocre 350 average hole course and it was no fun at all. Take the short one all day after that. Could play with one disc too, that's a plus.
 
As a side note, Woodland Greens (237 ft avg) at Highbridge may have the most rounds played on it of the 5 hill courses with Blueberry Hill (340-365 ft avg) a close second. Chestnut Grove, the original 9-hole course by the campground (234 ft avg), easily has had the most rounds played there.

I by no means doubt your experience on the sport - I never have.

How is that relevant? You can make short tees on those 9 longer properly designed holes I mentioned and have a large variation. Add a few new pin locations and you have yourself a great 9 holer.

Just because a course has a lot of people playing it does not make it technical and/or difficult. *I did not look up those courses you mentioned.*
 
The only point I was making is that players in general will continue playing shorter courses even when longer courses perceived to be good are in the area. Nothing beyond this OP exercise. Not sure what point JuJu was going for with the OP? Not sure where you find such a stark choice to make or why your choice would matter?
 
^Mine does not matter I'm just a random person on the internet that doesn't have a PDGA number. Honest question, thanks for the quick reply..
 
I'll take the shorter course and play it safari when I want to (attempt to) throw long.
 
I'd take the longer course. I play this really short, technical course during most of the week (it's close to work, so I can play a round on my lunch break and still get back within an hour). All I want to do on the weekend is play a course where I can just let it rip without hitting a tree every other shot.
 
Bump.

This thread was going well until I quoted CGK. I'll leave it be aside from this bump:)
 
Bald Eagle, in my backyard has several options for play. All last summer I had the red/white and gold layouts. Red and white average about 180' per hole, gold averages 405'. From Jun-Dec of last year I played maybe 10 rounds of the gold layout, while about 100 each on the red and white. Much of it has to do with the level of players I'm playing with. Still, if I head out on my own, I'll choose a shorter layout once every 5 times or better.

Now that I have the blue layout (average 320' or so), I'll probably play a ratio of 1:3:10 gold:blue:red/white.

Those of you that think 175' average doesn't sound fun or challenging, you're missing out, I thoroughly enjoy myself every time I play out there.
 
personal i like short courses that are techincal the best, but i have no issue with going out on long courses and crushing it. i have both in the area. :clap: keeps you on point if go play both frequintely :popcorn:
 
Wonderful point.
I would opt for as mainy quality holes as possible.
Given the plot of land, if you layed it out as an 18, and again a 10-13 hole course, does the 10-13 hole layout yield substantially better holes?

If yes, then make a really good 10-13 hole course rather than a meh 18.
If no, might as well make it 18.
If the holes really aren't any more interesting one way or the other, go for 18.

Quality holes over quantity of holes.

This is my thought exactly. Chalk 1 more vote for a lesser amount of better quality holes. Don't try to cram to much into the given amount of space.
 
Top