• 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)

Review pet peeve - blind baskets

A 666 foot uphill hole is not a blind hole unless you still can't see the pin when you land in the fairway within around 200-250 feet of the hole.

we were about 150 away before we found it under a broken tree to the left in the bushes

shall i assume on that 3 shot scenario, its the first time youve played it and its a casual round?

exactly
 
Martin, you must not be talking to the same top pros that I've worked with on design for 20 years. Yes, practicing holes before a round is professional behavior. However, they learn the blind holes because they have to, not because they prefer them. In fact, the top pros would rather play just one or two courses in an event rather than three or four because of the advantage more courses with technical shots like blind holes gives to the locals.

If they have time to practice and some traveling pros do not, they might have an advantage on the blind holes so they may like them for that reason.

Holding design practice hostage to the current economic plight of disc golf's "professionals" is just nuts!
 
If that makes me a recreational player, so be it. But, lets look at Idlewild in this post and see how many of these blind elements are found:
#2 - the OB pond hole
Not blind for your second shot from the landing area
#3 - can not see the ground or trees around the corner or OB creek from the tee
Not blind from the desired landing area since it's a par 4
#5 - ideal landing zones on drive and 2nd shot are blind
Unless it's changed, you throw straight down and across creek or short of it off tee, all visible
#6 - ditto
reference trees for where to line up and land each shot along the way
#7 - has blind trees near basket (luck)
If trees are within 10m of pin, no problem
#11 - blind landing zone - pretty benign though. (and OB is close to basket)
You can see landing area or curving it to the left is pretty open area. You can see where to throw second shot from the landing area.
#13 - blind landing zone and blind trees in landing zone area
Agreed. Not a favorite hole and I would mark it down.
#14 - blind landing zone/basket
Also, not a favorite although going uphill it's easier to see the reference points where to throw
#15 - blind landing zone with close blind OB (depends on where "landing zone" is supposed to be. If 2nd shot is supposed to be over the crest of the hill, that makes that landing zone blind, but not the basket/green)
This is how to do a blind "over the hill" shot where the landing area is wide open with no OB
#16 - OB is close to basket
Usually visible on second shot on this par 4
#18 - first landing zone is blind (more than 50 feet past crest of hill)
You can line up your throw because it's straight over the top of the hill and the fairway stays about the same width after the crest as what you can see from the tee. No OB or blind change in direction or width of fairway past the crest.
 
a 5 star course should be easy to navigate your first time. If you have to play it 5 times to enjoy it, it is not a 5 star course. Blind holes done well are vital to the sport, no arguement there. Blind does not equal bad by any means, but I don't talk about good blind holes becaue they are just holes. Blind holes done poorly lead to confusion, slow the pace of the game, and contribute to lost discs and that's why I mention them in the cons. I am sure the top 10 course have blind holes, but I bet when I go I can either read where to throw on the sign or see a very obvious path to the basket.
 
Last edited:
I hope this isn't a repeat, the discussion is interesting but I haven't time to read it all...

When writing, you need to target your reader(s). I see three different potential users each with different goals. These are novice, first-time on a course, and repeat players.

Each user is valid and has different needs from a review. The repeat players will undoubtedly be the largest group, but the others are quite valid, too.

It may be better to be able to tag reviews as targeting one of the user models.
 
I totally agree that I hate to walk up to a tee and have no idea where to throw my shot. i hate having to walk down the faiway to find the pin. Something should tell me where to throw or where to aim etc.
 
I hope this isn't a repeat, the discussion is interesting but I haven't time to read it all...

When writing, you need to target your reader(s). I see three different potential users each with different goals. These are novice, first-time on a course, and repeat players.

Each user is valid and has different needs from a review. The repeat players will undoubtedly be the largest group, but the others are quite valid, too.

It may be better to be able to tag reviews as targeting one of the user models.

I try to write reviews with all different types of players in mind. It helps that I have my gf along whenever I play somewhere new, so I get the perspective of a newer, less experienced player as I throw the course.
 
I try to write reviews with all different types of players in mind. It helps that I have my gf along whenever I play somewhere new, so I get the perspective of a newer, less experienced player as I throw the course.

Ditto, I make references like "not a beginner course" "Course does not challenge advanced players" "Family Friendly Course" I write my reviews for anyone thinking about playing the course (why write a review for course regulars, they know the course)
 
Reading all of this, I think course pages should include a skill level description, so people know what they're getting themselves into. The Charlotte DGC includes this for each of its courses and I think it's always a nice added tidbit. For example, Renny is listed as advanced/pro, while Reedy Creek is for beginners/intermediate.

This would (or at least should) reduce people's complaints about all these different course nuances- i.e. blind baskets, too much elevation, holes too long, etc. It seems a lot of really good courses get knocked down, not because of anything the course did wrong, but because people are playing a course that's too tough for them.
 
I got my butt kicked by Carousel, BADLY (I think the score was in the 80's) That did not affect my review in the least.
Try to mention things and the reader can take what they want out of it. If I read a review and it says it takes 2-3 hours to play a course and their is a lot of elevation, then I know to be prepared for a long hard course. If it says blind holes or poor flow I know to bring a map.
 
good topic ... i'll jump in as i always ding courses for having too many or unnecessary blind holes. i don't follow the logic of why/how a blind hole would be a pro

a few of reasons i list blind holes as cons:
- lessened visual appeal -- can't see the entire hole, can't see the full flight path, can't see my shot almost hit the basket, etc. this is my biggest con as it really takes away from the hole & makes the hole less fun to play.

- sucks having to walk halfway up the fairway to see where to throw; less of an issue after you play the course a few times, rewards locals

- lost disc factor goes up exponentially on blind holes -- this really sucks when playing alone or requiring someone to spot to make sure no discs get lost

- luck factor often increased, especially on wooded holes

many courses have holes that are blind for no reason -- why would you not move the basket or tee a few feet to make it visible from the tee? it's a visual game. a few blind holes on a course are ok, they can be good if the situation warrants it, but too many can be a big negative for a course IMHO. i'll always prefer a hole i can see to a blind hole as i want to watch my disc fly.
 
just needed to use my post # 666 to to let blind holes know that they are not loved enough by many! :wall:
 
Top