There generally is no "going for it" with forced lay-ups and that is where the problems lies.
Mike
Definitely. If the only play
off the tee is the smart play, that's bad design IMO.
I don't see that as a problem. Where is the rule that says a hole must have a route to go for it?
The problem I see with most young players today is they think distance is everything. They need to learn how to play holes like this and that sometimes par is good.
They can learn to play holes like that all day if they want to, all I'm asking is that tee options be more than a <200' get out of trouble shot, especially for long par 3+ holes. Otherwise, why pour a tee and waste the concrete?
The type of hole that I think you describe, is not good design. I'm fine with making an easy layup the smart play, but it can't be the only play.
Exactly. :hfive:
Chunks,
Don't confuse Houck's "NAGS" with "forced layups"; they're two totally different animals.
A 250' layup to a tight landing area is VERY MUCH a golf shot (there being quite a few of this type on John's Meadows course (his old plot) amongst others that I know of). NAGS, as the name implies, is the type of shot that really doesn't challenge anyone THAT much and doesn't yield any scoring spread.
Referring to a ball golf analogy, talk to the PGA Pros about 1 of their favorite, challenging tracts...Heritage Plantation in SC. A (to their standards) very tight, short course where tee shot placement is PARAMOUNT. Virtually all the guys go there AND love the course. A LOT of irons off the tees. Some of the players will even TOTALLY leave the driver out of the bag, so their concentration is on placement (3W on down) and never get tempted to "go for it". Cause they know they'll suffer if they do.
If such challenges are good for PGA Pros, the same concept is probably good for dg'er...at least once in a while.
Karl
Yeah, NAGS wasn't exactly the right term, it just was the closest concept that related to this. I think your ball golf analogy is off in regards to holes I'm referring to. Hole 18 at SPC is like playing a hole at Pebble Beach except your teeing off from inside the maintenance shed or have to putt-putt through the windmill hole to start.
I think some of the debate is really about what is a forced layup. I am in favor of forced layups where if you don't hit the "window" you could be in trouble. I am not in favor of 100 foot simple shots that no one has trouble with.
That's fine with me. I'm just not in favor of 100 foot tee shots that everyone has trouble with either.
Lol, Brotherdave, when I saw you started this thread I knew you were thinking about 18 at Springwood. That gold tee is asinine. The blue tee is somewhat better, but as it is leveled slightly downhill and the throw is slightly uphill, its also just ridiculous. At least its not a lay-up, although since I rarely make it under the tunnel without hitting a branch, it might as well be.
My feeling is this- if the hole was designed such that its risk-reward, then I'm fine with it. I think this works best on Par 3's, where if the average duffer will lay-up and post a 3, while the advanced golfers will go for it and likely score 2's, to me it works. However, there has to be a risk too. If you go for it and you don't make it, you should be looking at a bogie or worse. #2 at Springwood is a good example- when I go for it, as I do every time, and I make it all the way to the basket, its a birdie. But if my drive is off, I almost guarantee myself a bogie. I scored a double the other day when a pine kicked my drive out into the fairway of 3. But for those with the cajones and skill, it is, for all intents and purposes, an ace run. That one time I missed an ace on 2 by ~12 inches has inspired me to go for it every time.
So, tastefully done is my answer.
It's not just 18, every now and then I'll stumble upon a hole like this, curse the disc golf gods for allowing it to happen and then black it out of my mind. 18 @ SPC is a perfect example though.
I thought twice about putting "tastefully done" as an option b/c I had a feeling it would be the runaway winner. I falsely assumed that everyone had the same interpretation as me. I'm totally cool with technical shots off the tee where you probably would want to disc down to increase your chances of getting a good lie for your next throw.
Hole 7 at Castle Hayne Park, NC is a good example of a "coerced layup."
The smart move is to play for par and just make sure you get past the early trees and land straight in the fairway with a straight putter or mid. Or you can go for it with a long turnover (if the basket is in the long), risking hitting the first trees or having a bad lie for your approach. Totally okay with this hole because there is risk/reward, scoring separation, and if you wanted to go for the glory, you can.
Now if you imagine that this hole doglegs hard left or right about 50' past the hole so that your only option is to lob a disc past the trees and in the bend, to me that would be a forced layup and bad design because again,
why bother pouring a large tee pad for basically a get-out-of-trouble shot?
