Par 4 and 5 Design Mistake

[SonicGuy]

However, a 550 foot hole will probably generate too many 3s for Open, so it likely wouldn't be a good hole for them no matter the par.

This. Make it <450' or >650' IMO.

A 550' hole better have some sort of feature significantly restricting the drive or green access.

 

[keepitfun]

For purposes of this thread I was envisioning a wooded lower canopy 550 foot hole that allowed for an easy recovery after an errant initial throw....the arsenal of overhand, sidearm and player ability at the higher levels ensures that poor throws must be punished rather than allow for routine recovery

If this is not the case then we just have what players who despise par 3 golf despise.....a course decided by a putting contest

 

[DavidSauls]

If they can recover from an errant drive with a routine throw, what sort of throw are they left with after a good drive?

 

[keepitfun]

If they can recover from an errant drive with a routine throw, what sort of throw are they left with after a good drive?

thats the point of the thread the difference in errant throws and on target throws in minimal thus any advantage for playing the hole well is neglible

 

[Casey 1988]

The par 5 mistake was not a mistake at the time, most discs topped out at speed 10 in 2003. Due to disc tech changing in both plastic and speed, as well as the modern crossover X step for backhand with both two leg and one leg styles being made in the 2000's to help get more distance the hole got dropped down to a par 4 as the hole was only single tee pad at 515 feet at the time. Later an almost 570 foot alternate was added keeping the par a 4 on the alternate. this is a mostly open hole on the course.

 

[DavidSauls]

thats the point of the thread the difference in errant throws and on target throws in minimal thus any advantage for playing the hole well is neglible

You've lost me. How can there be minimal difference between an errant throw and a good one?

 

[keepitfun]

You've lost me. How can there be minimal difference between an errant throw and a good one?

a poor hole will not succinctly punish a bad throw

a slightly uphill 650 foot wooded hole par 4

McBeth throws a 380 foot drive directly up the fairway landing dead center and is left with a 270 foot uphill upshot to the green

McWreck throws an errant throw that flips over and he is in light woods 50 feet off fairway and about 350 feet and due to sparse woods he is left with a routine 300 foot throw to the green through some fairly open gaps

both players have a reasonable chance at 3 and certain easy pars

The point of the thread is that all too often higher par holes do not do enough to punish bad throws, a tricky balance as overpunitive is bad also lol,

My point was a good par 4 would require 2 good shots to get a birdie look.......sometimes a poor par 4 only requires 1 good shot

 

[Steve West]

...
My point was a good par 4 would require 2 good shots to get a birdie look.......sometimes a poor par 4 only requires 1 good shot

So it's a par 3. (Which still doesn't make it a good hole.)

Avoiding legit par 4s is not needed.

"Toughening up" a par 3 just to call it a par 4 will usually result in a bad hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

I envision an errant drive being more than 30' shorter than a good drive. Unless there's a dogleg and that 30' means missing the landing zone.

On long, open holes, 30' distance, or 50' off the direct line, just isn't that much of a difference. If it's lightly wooded, it's not much different than open.

At my local course, on the (blue-level) par 4s & 5s, if you have an errant drive you're facing a difficult threaded shot out of the woods, or you're sitting OB, or you've missed the landing zone and have to conjure up something creative to get down the next dogleg.

But that's true on many of the Par-3s, where a good drive might get you a 2, but an errant drive risks a 4.

 

[keepitfun]

eh the meaning of my original idea has been diluted and lost haha

boiled down by semantics and analytics

I stand by my original idea that a poor par 4 will not succinctly punish an errant throw thus enabling a feasible recovery for a birdie look.....a poor par 3 after an errant throw never allows for a feasible birdie look

I will not offer any more examples or statistics as my point was lost in these

it's really quite simple a bad throw on a par three will not allow a birdie look but on many par 4 and 5s you can recover and still get that birdie look

that was the concept I was trying to address and how can we address it through design etc. but somehow my original correct premise got lost

ahh the joy of the internet

 

[ToddL]

it's really quite simple a bad throw on a par three will not allow a birdie look but on many par 4 and 5s you can recover and still get that birdie look

With this in mind,
I've come to the conclusion that it's practically impossible to make a course that good players can't defeat. Even our 10,000 foot wooded courses routinely get shredded by the top pros (Iron Hill, WR Jackson, Maple Hill, Hornets Nest). They're gonna lace 500' drives in the woods, and they're gonna hit some 50' putts, they're gonna get a ton of birdies, and there's nothing we can do about it.

However, what we can do is prevent them from saving birdie or par when they have an errant shot. If a player misses the fairway, I want to punish them for missing. None of this "save it with a great shot" nonsense. If you go off the fairway, you barely deserve a par, much less any chance in hell of a birdie. Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish this is narrow fairways with ungodly thick rough, or massive amounts of OB.

This also means that you have to reserve the rough for truly bad shots, not just unlucky kicks. No more chaos trees in the middle of the fairway, no more multi-route fairways. Just a single fairway, as narrow as possible but wide enough to be fair, and no clearing anything off the fairway. Throw in some doglegs to prevent eagle possibilities. No over-the-top lines ever allowed. Hell, stick in some windmills and waterfalls while we're at it.

 

[biscoe]

With this in mind,
I've come to the conclusion that it's practically impossible to make a course that good players can't defeat. Even our 10,000 foot wooded courses routinely get shredded by the top pros (Iron Hill, WR Jackson, Maple Hill, Hornets Nest). They're gonna lace 500' drives in the woods, and they're gonna hit some 50' putts, they're gonna get a ton of birdies, and there's nothing we can do about it.

However, what we can do is prevent them from saving birdie or par when they have an errant shot. If a player misses the fairway, I want to punish them for missing. None of this "save it with a great shot" nonsense. If you go off the fairway, you barely deserve a par, much less any chance in hell of a birdie. Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish this is narrow fairways with ungodly thick rough, or massive amounts of OB.

This also means that you have to reserve the rough for truly bad shots, not just unlucky kicks. No more chaos trees in the middle of the fairway, no more multi-route fairways. Just a single fairway, as narrow as possible but wide enough to be fair, and no clearing anything off the fairway. Throw in some doglegs to prevent eagle possibilities. No over-the-top lines ever allowed. Hell, stick in some windmills and waterfalls while we're at it.

You're supposed to have a bunch of emojis included when you write satire...

 

[ToddL]

I've never made a joke in my life.

 

[biscoe]

I've never made a joke in my life.

In that case your vision of high end disc golf sounds like some apocalyptic nightmare of pitching out to fairways and the elimination of the creativity of the recovery game that is one of the most interesting facets of the game from my personal standpoint.

 

[Steve West]

With this in mind,
I've come to the conclusion that it's practically impossible to make a course that good players can't defeat.

Why in the world would anybody WANT to? A course should be designed to allow the best (that day) to defeat it. Not easily, and not by all of the good players, but it should be possible. If a few dozen good players are on the course, a few will get lucky enough to have a great round. Do you want great rounds to get bad scores? If so, why?

Even our 10,000 foot wooded courses routinely get shredded by the top pros (Iron Hill, WR Jackson, Maple Hill, Hornets Nest). They're gonna lace 500' drives in the woods, and they're gonna hit some 50' putts, they're gonna get a ton of birdies, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Is that what shredded means?

You could take away the possibility of making 500' drives and 50 foots putts, but isn't that exactly what we want to see and aspire to?

You can do something about a ton of birdies. Just set par lower. (Even the toughest pars out there are usually still a throw or two too low per course.)

Also, you could get rid of some birdies by making more of the holes the no-fun type where nobody birdies. (Think 650 foot par 3s.) But would it be worth it?

However, what we can do is prevent them from saving birdie or par when they have an errant shot. If a player misses the fairway, I want to punish them for missing. None of this "save it with a great shot" nonsense. If you go off the fairway, you barely deserve a par, much less any chance in hell of a birdie. Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish this is narrow fairways with ungodly thick rough, or massive amounts of OB.

What's wrong with saving par with a great throw? If you set par according to the definition (the score that an expert disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions) it would take a truly great throw to save par after a bad throw. That's the same kind of accomplishment it should take to get birdie. Getting birdie means being better than the competition. Some players should be allowed better than the competition. It shouldn't matter whether they did it with a great tee throw or a great recovery throw. As long as we're talking about truly great throws.

This also means that you have to reserve the rough for truly bad shots, not just unlucky kicks. No more chaos trees in the middle of the fairway, no more multi-route fairways. Just a single fairway, as narrow as possible but wide enough to be fair, and no clearing anything off the fairway. Throw in some doglegs to prevent eagle possibilities. No over-the-top lines ever allowed. Hell, stick in some windmills and waterfalls while we're at it.

Those are all design options, but they won't do what you want. You can make a 600 foot tunnel and somebody will be lucky enough to pipe it down almost the whole way and make a throw-in.

As for eagle possibilities, if you're seeing multiple eagles on a hole, its par is almost certainly too low. No matter the design.

To sum up: First set par correctly, then see if radical designs are needed.

 

[mopar]

As a designer you need to get over the mindset of trying to "make a course that good players can't defeat."

It's not about trying to defeat the good players. I have wrestled with this myself. You need to be ok with good players scoring well. Make it challenging yet fair.
It's not your design vs the players.

 

[Cgkdisc]

As a designer you need to get over the mindset of trying to "make a course that good players can't defeat."

It's not about trying to defeat the good players. I have wrestled with this myself. You need to be ok with good players scoring well. Make it challenging yet fair.
It's not your design vs the players.

Looks like another time to post this story on Players versus Courses

 

[mopar]

That's an old article that I think most people who have researched course design have read. It does have some good info but there is also info there that I disagree with...it is opinionated at the very least.

I'm happy to discuss it if you'd like but I wont derail this thread doing so.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That's an old article that I think most people who have researched course design have read. It does have some good info but there is also info there that I disagree with...it is opinionated at the very least.

I'm happy to discuss it if you'd like but I wont derail this thread doing so.

Sure, send a PM with your thoughts. I reread it today and think it's even more relevant today than it was 6 years ago.

 

[mopar]

Will do, give me a few days. Going to sleep now and work is busy.