optimal distance for big arm hole?

[Dave242]

That does not necessarily mean there is a design problem with the holes, but that the par assignment is strange/wrong/unreasonable.

 

[ERicJ]

tom bass has a 800 and i think the new jack brooks course it isnt finished but one of its holes is supposed to be in that range and im guessing since all the the other holes are par 3 length and the 500 on the other course is par 3 that that hole will be too

When Tom Bass courses are used for TxSDGC we assign realistic par values.

The Wilmont course plays par 59 with Par 4's on #6, #8, #11 and #14. If the long tee on #14 is used then it becomes a Par 5 hole.

The Powell course is modified somewhat to allow the third temporary course ("Tourney") to be installed.

 

[Omega SuperSloth]

didnt know that cool i dont think thatll help with the everythings a 3 attitude down here but its a start , i think every hole should at least have a realistic bird chance even if its only the pros that have a shot.

 

[Jimb]

400-450'. Big arms will be putting with their second shot.

I agree.

And I don't think that making a hole virtually impossible to birdie for an am like me at this range is unreasonable. If I huck one out there at my best distance, say 350'ish, It's highly unlikely that I'll make my birdie putt on a 450' hole. On the same hole, someone who can throw further will have a much shorter birdie putt. More power to them.

So if the par standard is that the best pro level players are supposed to be able to regularly make par on a hole, then it shouldn't surprise me that I have to struggle to make par on some of those same holes. I'm just not hung up on comparing my scoring to the pros... fortunately. Wasn't there a thread about some sort of "standard deviation" on courses. Like the harder a course is the more diverse the scores are between the best & worst scores. And on an easier course, the scores fall into a smaller range? I think that this would be related to this thread if it can be found.

I was a pretty good, competitive tennis player back in the day. But even the worst satellite circuit pro would've goose-egged me. I'm OK with that. I feel the same way about the disc golf course too. Climo should be able to mop up the course with me... and I'm sure that he would! That doesn't mean that I can't be happy with my own score if I play well.

 

[g-sauce]

course: Stony Creek Metropark
hole: 24th
distance (am/pro): 597/998ft ~ 182/304m
par (am & pro): 3

the am tee can give a slight advantage to big arms who can huck it 450+ but honestly neither does a good job seperating them. but since it is the last hole i think it was a good choice. the pro tee is slightly more obstacle laden (trees along left side of fairway, tree about 300-350ft out in middle of fairway, then the bend where the am tee is placed, also against the wind) than the am (which only fights crosswind down a long, wide fairway with gentle hills).

So i believe that the pro is the more challenging route, but only the biggest of arms have even a slight chance of making par from the pro tee (which in my opinion should be at least 4 giving big arms chance to drive, drive, approach, putt for par, while smaller arms have to place all their drives pretty well in order to do the same).

It is definitely fun to have an all out driving war though.

 

[Lewis]

At that distance it really should be a par 4. Think about it this way: a hole that's 250 feet is called a par 3, and most everybody, especially from the pro tee, is going to have at least 250ft left to cover after even a quality drive.

 

[bthoma1]

You need to put something in there that penalizes the noodle arms, or makes them lay up...like a creek or pond. Risk/reward you know.

But if it is a wide open, flat field you're working with, I'd say a 400 foot hole is ideal. The big arms have a legitimate birdie chance and the noodle arms do not. Once you get longer than that the only advantage the big arms have is they throw an approach shot instead of another drive-not insignificant, but not huge.

At 400ft the big arms have an ace attempt

 

[Neophyte]

There is just something diabolical about a hole that is 666ft long. It makes it even more difficult if there is a strong dogleg or a change in elevation that keeps the first throw from being over 300 ft.

 

[Neophyte]

I am describing "the fatherless" from Brandywine, DE.

 

[Guurn]

There are about a hundred different ways to design a hole like this. Trying to think of some challenge hasn't been done many times is harder. I consider anyone that can throw further than me on a regular basis a big arm. Basically anyone that can hit 440' and over with pretty good accuracy. I feel safe saying I will never be able to do that.

Something I haven't seen often is an open fairway out to about 150'-200' followed by a large island of trees out to about 400' with routes around the edges (left and right). Big arms would be able to throw over the island and others would be able to take the roundabout way. If they are accurate they should only add one stroke. Big arms that aren't accurate would either have long putts or, on a bad pull, have to throw out of the woods. Even better would be to have the basket on the start of a downhill so if they overthrow they have long upshots.

I can think of a few holes that are kinda like that, but nothing just like it. Unfortunately usually we don't have infinite choices and have to work with whatever the terrain gives us. You could simulate holes like this by planting large shrubs in strategic locations and using the hills well. As I play more courses and see more designs the tunnel or pinch point seems to be done so often on courses it almost seems like a go to design rather than a well thought out hole. When I play a course and see the 6th tunnel shot or what seems to be a pinch but instead is just a lack of small tree removal to create a lane I just find it boring.

I think the way you are going to see separation occur between big arms and shorter throwers is just the long hole with landing zones thing. I get the design and why it makes sense but it just doesn't strike me as fun.

 

[mattdabbs]

Hole 16 at Cliff Stephens in Clearwater, FL has 425 of water carry if you throw straight at it and another 25-30 to the hole. So if you can gun it 450 it makes a HUGE difference. Otherwise you are either wet in gator water or else you have to lay up 250 ft to the right and then have another 250 ft throw at the basket and hope for a par putt. That is one hole have a canon for an arm is the difference between a birdie and a par or even a bogey.

 

[Dave242]

Cliff Stephens #16 is an excellent hole!

I love the risk/reward factor - you choose how far down the bank you want to go.....or if you want to go for the deuce (if you arm is big enough). It is fair for everyone, but brutal if you get too greedy or throw poorly and you hyzer out into the drink.

It a good hole to see all the folks who talk online about being able to throw 450' give it a whirl.

 

[t i m]

I think the places that a "big arm" has the greatest advantage are holes where there is a high, over-the-trees route to the basket that allows a big-arm to throw without obstacles, while a weaker-armed played has to throw through the trees and try to hit the alley. In cases like this, big-arm means easy par, possible duece, while weaker-arm means possible duece, possible par, possible 4,5,6... the risk becomes much higher for a person who can't take the big-arm route. These holes provide far more big-arm advantage than open field shots.

 

[biscoe]

I am describing "the fatherless" from Brandywine, DE.

isn't that one "the beast"? i don't remember "the bastard" being anywhere near that long unless it's been extended.

 

[Cooler Will]

400-450'. Big arms will be putting with their second shot. Duh.

Duh. +1.

 

[andrewkh]

if you want a hole for the real big arms. make it a hole around 600 ft but plant alot of small trees and shrubs that grow around 30 ft high max that can be thrown over. true big arms can throw the d and get the height while the weinies will be trying to figure out a good layup shot for an optimal second and third shot

 

[CwAlbino]

if you want a hole for the real big arms. make it a hole around 600 ft but plant alot of small trees and shrubs that grow around 30 ft high max that can be thrown over. true big arms can throw the d and get the height while the weinies will be trying to figure out a good layup shot for an optimal second and third shot

I don't agree with that, not everyone goes for a massive high flex shot for distance. One of the longest shots I've had on the course, not just throwing for practice, was at Blue Ribbon Pines. The hole is 420' (d'oh, another one from a different thread) and it's a tunnel shot. I put it about 20' short of the basket for a 400' shot. The shot never went more than 10-15' off the ground. Then I missed the putt and still ended up with par...

 

[bazillion]

I think it hinges on where "noodle" stops and "big arm" starts. My best is about 275, which means a 500-foot hole is a 3 on a good day. Lots of people can throw 500 though, so for them a bird is not unreasonable.

"Noodle arms" who can throw 350? I don't consider them noodle arms at all.

 

[biscoe]

i wouldn't go so far as to say "lots of people" can throw 500.

 

[bazillion]

Would you go as far as, say, 495?