Is course difficulty over-rated ?

[Mando]

Even though a very small % of players are at the pro level, there seems to a trend towards overly long and/or difficult being a requirement for a top-rated course; even though the overly difficulty often precludes enjoyment for the masses. A good example would be the Lake Marshall courses. Is the Lions layout really a better course than the Lair, if it's designed for less than 5% of disc golfers ?

 

[ThrowBot]

I think that difficulty and enjoyably are basically independent variables. A good/fun course can be easy or hard to score on. A punishingly difficult course can still be fun, or in some cases really lame.

Funny that you mention Lake Marshall. I greatly enjoyed playing the Lions course, even though I probably averaged over 6 throws per hole (yikes!) But like, the hole designs are fun and varied. The terrain is great. The lines are very fair. The water carries are whimsical. And yes, the distance is massive... but I don't think a single time I stepped up to a shot and thought "this is just a dumb open field bomb."

Now for competition, I would get demolished there. But for fun factor in casual play? Tough to beat.

I do think that certain design elements are over used at some courses, in order to create difficulty for the sake of difficulty. Like, there are courses where "distance distance distance!" seems to be all they've got going. Same with "trees trees trees!" in some areas.

Also, in the meta sense, i do think it's important to continue to push the sport forward. Part of that is newer and bigger challenges. So I get why people experiment with more and more difficult designs. You don't know if it's good or bad until you build that course and toss some frizbees!

 

[Crooow]

Replay

I think "replayability" is a factor. If a course is nice but after playing it once or twice, I don't think I would be able to improve my score then I am unlikely to want to return (I'm not much of a social golfer). A more difficult course provides a challenge to improve and so I am more likely to select it. Thus it seems a "better" course to me because it makes me want to return. :clap:

 

[jupiterboy]

I suspect the future is more purpose built courses where you don't have park traffic to contend with, and also have blue and white tees where one is not an afterthought.

 

[GripEnemy]

This is in reference to me and myself only:


More difficult (as long as it's fair!!!) the better. I haven't traveled much for disc so my courses played is limited but if I could only play at places like Nocky, Iron Hill gold to gold, Muddy Run, Ryan C Kelly Green Monster (longs), The Preserve (Perkasie, PA), until my body quits on me I would.

Sedgley is fun and all but I'd rather fight for par or under not see how many drives I can park.

***I'm sure this view will change with age and stamina

 

[Steve West]

For a long time more difficult was always better. Now, we have the resources to make courses too difficult.

For Lake Marshall, here is how the courses fit various levels of player.

For Lions Blue we can't even say how high a rating would be the best fit for that course. We just know the best fit is at the upper end of the range. Also, that the fit drops off significantly as ratings get lower.

For Lair, it's best fit is for players rated near 1000. Also, the fit is not too bad even for 900-rated players.

Lions Yellow, a shorter version of Lion's Blue, seems to be the course that replaced The Lair. Which is too bad. Sure, Yellow is better for 950-rated players than Blue, but Lair was even better.

And why are those 875ish-rated players stuck on a 10,000+ foot course?

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not quite sure how "difficulty" is defined here.

But I'm a terrible player who enjoys courses designed for higher skill levels, and courses with plenty of par-4s and par-5s. Not necessarily massive distance, but challenging fairway shots and tricky greens.

 

[nothinbuttree]

On a good day, I play 900ish disc golf. But I seem to really like long courses. Part of that may be there are more par 4s and 5s, and not being a very precise thrower, maybe I feel I have a better chance at getting birdies on the 4s and 5s (this seems to be backed up by looking at my scores). You can still come back from a small mistake on a par 4 or 5 and card a birdie, not so on a par 3.

And I know the correlation may not be high, but it SEEMS like the longer courses have more variety--right to left, left to right, straight with a slight bend at the end, some tight lines, some bomber holes, woods-lined fairways (some right side, some left), woods to open, open to woods, uphill, downhill, and combinations of the above.

Maybe since there is more room to work with on a 750' hole, there is more potential variety. Certainly no design expert, but the typical park style course with most holes between 250' and 400' seems to have limited variety. A couple older Steady Ed courses I've played had some good variety for sure, just not the distance, so they can turn in birdie fests for the INT and above player. Nothing wrong with that either--its good to shoot well under par every now and then. (Or so I am told).

 

[playrecords]

^ one of my favorite things in a course is a well designed multi shot hole. Ace runs are fun of course but I love a long track where I am also challenged with my similar 900ish level.

 

[Hampstead]

Challenging can be fun or it can be unnecessarily cumbersome. Difficult low percentage lines as the only option aren't going to keep me coming back for more.

 

[runningDoc]

maple hill big boy layout is a little too punishing in the sense there's water holes that need 350-400ft of water carry and there's little to no short bailouts.

350+ ft water carry with unpredictable/invisible wind patterns means you probably need 400ft power shots over to be safe


some bailouts are on thin spines of land with water on both sides

of course there's easier layouts that are out there permanently and very enjoyable. but most of the time new visitors will want to play the pro layout and end up losing a ton of discs in the water and angry.

 

[DavidSauls]

On a good day, I play 900ish disc golf. But I seem to really like long courses. Part of that may be there are more par 4s and 5s, and not being a very precise thrower, maybe I feel I have a better chance at getting birdies on the 4s and 5s (this seems to be backed up by looking at my scores). You can still come back from a small mistake on a par 4 or 5 and card a birdie, not so on a par 3.

And I know the correlation may not be high, but it SEEMS like the longer courses have more variety--right to left, left to right, straight with a slight bend at the end, some tight lines, some bomber holes, woods-lined fairways (some right side, some left), woods to open, open to woods, uphill, downhill, and combinations of the above.

Maybe since there is more room to work with on a 750' hole, there is more potential variety. Certainly no design expert, but the typical park style course with most holes between 250' and 400' seems to have limited variety. A couple older Steady Ed courses I've played had some good variety for sure, just not the distance, so they can turn in birdie fests for the INT and above player. Nothing wrong with that either--its good to shoot well under par every now and then. (Or so I am told).

^ one of my favorite things in a course is a well designed multi shot hole. Ace runs are fun of course but I love a long track where I am also challenged with my similar 900ish level.

I believe that part of the appeal of higher-par, multi-shot holes is variety. Tee shots are the same every time you play the hole, but those fairway shots are different each time.

Beyond that, bigger courses have more opportunity for variety; there are more different looks in 70 throws, than 50 throws.

 

[PMantle]

Not sure if this is truly on point, but I am often frustrated by the amount of resources dedicated to our courses due to the percentage that they are too easy for MPO. We have two tournaments per year, and almost none of them live near these courses. The rest of us play every week.

 

[playrecords]

^^Agree with David's point. I would add that for me consecutive well executed throws on a par 4 /5 hole is more satisfying than your typical one throw birdie.

 

[biscoe]

For a long time more difficult was always better. Now, we have the resources to make courses too difficult.

For Lake Marshall, here is how the courses fit various levels of player.

For Lions Blue we can't even say how high a rating would be the best fit for that course. We just know the best fit is at the upper end of the range. Also, that the fit drops off significantly as ratings get lower.

For Lair, it's best fit is for players rated near 1000. Also, the fit is not too bad even for 900-rated players.

Lions Yellow, a shorter version of Lion's Blue, seems to be the course that replaced The Lair. Which is too bad. Sure, Yellow is better for 950-rated players than Blue, but Lair was even better.

And why are those 875ish-rated players stuck on a 10,000+ foot course?

Because they chose to register for an Open division at a DGPT event despite not being that level of player would be my first answer.

The primary reason The Lair was not used for the Silver Series is it simply is not ready in terms of the niceties sought by the tour. Tees need to be upgraded, etc.

How are you defining "fit"? IMO a course "fits" a player based primarily on a lack of shots that said player is simply incapable of executing. Simply looking at the scores paints an incomplete picture, particularly on multi-shot holes.

At this stage in my career I almost never throw 300 anymore. There are exactly zero holes on Lions Yellow which demand more of me than I am capable of doing in order to play par golf. I never do play par golf because there are many shots out there which are challenging for me without being beyond my capability and I inevitably fail at some number of them. This is the nature of golf.

I was admittedly surprised at how poorly the lower rated women (the aforementioned 875 players) played holes 13 and 14 in the event. In previous events on the course we had used a shorter tee for 13 (normally Hole 7) and a shorter basket for 14 (normally 8) for divisions 'below" MA1 but I deemed the longer layouts as playable for the expected field. The expected field did not really show up as we had a few touring players and then a substantial drop off in rating to the other ladies. Neither hole has an effective water carry above 225 or so- both require some control over the shots. Both tee shots appear more intimidating than they actually are imo. In my experience Hole 13 is easily played for par and requires a bit more chutzpah to play for birdie. Even playing for birdie and failing should yield an easy bogey. Hole 14 is relatively easily played for bogey with par available with appropriate execution. I think the high scores were due partially due to players at that level being fairly wildly inaccurate despite having more than adequate distance, partially to their allowing the water to get in their heads, and partially due to a lack of smart play. Live and learn.

 

[biscoe]

And yes, course difficulty is over-rated in many cases, generally involving courses where the designer does not have a coherent plan for their target market.

 

[ru4por]

Over rated for whom? Us, here at DGCR? We are a collective of decent players and pretty experienced players. Overrated for local design and installation? Yup. This is really a problem in my area right now. We have some enthusiast that are converting solid 24 hole intermediate courses, to 18 hole champ level courses. A couple are in the works. They are not making sweeping changes, just combining a few hole to make them longer. The result IMO, is the making of a couple nice new holes, at the expense of losing a couple nice old holes. The course becomes different, but not really better. Personally, I am ambivalent. Longer is not really playing to my strength, but that is likely true of my MA50 and 60 divisions.

My issue is, with the recent surge in popularity, our area still needs intermediate and beginner courses. I don't necessarily want mom, dad and four kids under 8 y/o in tow, on the champ course, on a Sat afternoon. Providing them a selection of appropriate courses in nice parks benefits the entire golf community.

So, yeah....I think it is overrated.

 

[foxdawg10]

maple hill big boy layout is a little too punishing in the sense there's water holes that need 350-400ft of water carry and there's little to no short bailouts.

350+ ft water carry with unpredictable/invisible wind patterns means you probably need 400ft power shots over to be safe


some bailouts are on thin spines of land with water on both sides

of course there's easier layouts that are out there permanently and very enjoyable. but most of the time new visitors will want to play the pro layout and end up losing a ton of discs in the water and angry.

I played Maple Hill for first time in October. I played the red course, but chose to play some of the iconic holes from the Blue, or even White tees.

Best part of that place was the variety and options. You can't really complain about losing a disc or the difficulty of the hole when you have the option of laying 5 other layouts on that same hole. I lost one disc on hole 14, I chose to play the long tees. It cleared the main pond, but ended up fading too much and went down the drop off on the left and into the smaller pond, lol. Well worth the price of admission to give that hole a try.

 

[runningDoc]

I played Maple Hill for first time in October. I played the red course, but chose to play some of the iconic holes from the Blue, or even White tees.

Best part of that place was the variety and options. You can't really complain about losing a disc or the difficulty of the hole when you have the option of laying 5 other layouts on that same hole. I lost one disc on hole 14, I chose to play the long tees. It cleared the main pond, but ended up fading too much and went down the drop off on the left and into the smaller pond, lol. Well worth the price of admission to give that hole a try.

yeah thats where certain courses kind of use that difficulty factor to their advantage. .

its like visiting NYC you expect and welcome that urban jungle grit factor of seeing a couple rats or crazy dudes chanting on the subway as part of the experience you want to play those iconic maple hill water holes (especially as a tourist) and don't mind losing discs in the water.

but as someone who's hosted friends visiting from out of state to Maple Hill I kind of dread playing the pro layout and stock up on extra water discs before playing and convincing them on subsequent rounds to play the other super fun more forgiving layouts.

swinging it back to thread topic though... yeah its good to have easier intermediate courses and not force the "pro-course-ization" onto them just to appease the enthusiasts.

 

[Mando]

Over rated for whom? Us, here at DGCR? We are a collective of decent players and pretty experienced players.

Well, yes, since DGCR folks are doing the rating and are considered to be the authority. The perfect course in my mind have equal parts fun and challenging for a large audience, but it seems like alot more weight is given to challenging on DGCR.