smaller greens?

[Cgkdisc]

Buncrs are a solid way to increase challenge without a direct penalty. They have been used for more than 10 years under that name. And yet, the RC has been reluctant to incorporate it into the rules, but more than willing to add more punitive rules and course design elements. The problem with the general direction in course evolution is the addition of more punishing elements than creative challenges where shot shaping or a distance penalty is invoked like a buncr.

Punishing elements are mislabeled as risk/reward when they are really "risk-a-penalty". There's no reward in landing where you were supposed to land with the same good shot without a penalty area lurking nearby. You want true reward, we'd have marked areas close to OB where if you land safe, you get to freely advance your lie to say anywhere on the 10 meter circle. That's an actual risk/reward design element that rewards accuracy.

 

[DavidSauls]

I see the phrase "risk/reward" used in two different ways.

One is a high risk shot, with an elevated discrepancy between the results of a good shot, or bad.

The other, better IMO, use is for a shot where your decision affects the risk/reward. Take a chance, you might gain a stroke, or lose one (or more). Or play it differently, play it safe, and probably do neither.

 

[denny ritner]

But the center of that radius doesn't have to be the basket.

Totally agree. If OB (or a drop off or bushes, etc.) is near a basket, then a player's intended target shouldn't be the basket.

 

[DavidSauls]

But it does from a rules standpoint. 10 meters determines the stance requirements. If the basket is 2 feet from the edge of this 30' "green" then you'll be jumping from the green some spots and not jumping from outside the green in others.

Unless you are referring to the "green" as a purely ornamental feature, in which case do whatever, as long as it's fair within the bounds of the rules

If you're answering me, then---

I'm not talking about the "green" (the 10-meter circle). I'm talking about the circle of scatter shots around the point that a player is aiming for, from 200' (and presuming that data was correct).

On a perfectly flat, unobstructed green with no wind, it will be the basket.

Otherwise, a player might be aiming to one side or another, or short or long, so that even when his disc doesn't rest at the exact point he was aiming for, the highest probabilities are that it ends up where the odds for a good score are highest.

On a windy day, I'm trying to put my disc upwind of the basket, so that the circle of places where it's most likely to end up still result in a downwind putt---or, if upwind, not too far.

The same applies to a green with obstacles, or OB nearby.

I'm not fond of golf comparisons, but when it's on my TV I hear announcers talking about golfers trying to hit one particular part of the green---not necessary as close to the pin as possible. I think the principle is similar.

 

[thirtydirtybirds]

Yes, shot placement based on pin position doesn't have to be centered. And I think danger near or in the circle is fine as long as it's fair. Half or more of the circle obstructed is too much to me. Steep drop off is fine, but pair that with trees in the circle, roots, ob it quickly gets to be too much.

Really it comes down to good choices. Having a tough but fair green is fine if that's what the land calls for, but arbitrarily hard greens (trying to cram danger in to the area) is no good to me.

If we are talking about "the green" in disc golf I consider that the 10m circle. From a gameplay standpoint that is really the determining factor for pin placements. Where can the pin be to have a challenging but fair putt. Anything beyond that is purely aesthetic, or of limited impact. Having a manicured shaped "green" (area cleared that may be beyond 10m in some places) is great, and encourages shot placement choices but has a lot less impact than a shaped golf green.

I also dislike the golf comparisons. The scoring is essentially the same, but the differences beyond that quickly add up.

 

[Steve West]

For upshots, the distance from the aim point is roughly evenly distributed. In other words, you're about as likely to be 1 foot from center as 25 feet from center. (Because there is a lot more area 25 feet from center, the pattern of discs laying on the ground is denser at 1 foot from the aim point.)

The probability of making a putt is about 30/(meters squared).

Taking these two approximations together, we can compute that with no OB near the basket, the average remaining throws will be 2.16 (the upshot plus the first putt plus about one missed putt out of six attempts) when aiming to land at the basket, which is the ideal play.

If there is an OB road 10 feet behind the basket and the player still aims at the basket, the expected number of remaining throws goes up to 2.31. About one out of five throws goes OB, but the resulting relief which puts the lie nearer the basket reduces the missed putts from those positions.

If the player aimed 20 feet in front of the target, there would be no OB penalties, but the number of missed putts would raise the expected remaining throws to 2.37. So, trying to avoid any chance of OB is not worth it.

The ideal play is to aim 9 feet short of the target. This minimizes the net effects – more missed putts from landing farther from the basket vs. fewer OB penalties. The remaining throws by aiming here is 2.26.

Therefore, a throw that goes one inch into the OB ten feet behind the basket is not a one inch mistake. That throw has missed the ideal aim point by 19 feet 5 inches (4 inches being about half the width of the disc). That will happen only about once out of fourteen upshots.

 

[DavidSauls]

Thanks, Steve. Though OB, 10' behind the basket is pretty tight. It's followed by a virtually-automatic and boring 7' shot (unless there's a required drop zone).

For what it's worth, I mentioned before that Stoney Hill has a number of holes with OB in the circle, but only one is that close---and it's in front of the basket. And a hole that, but for the reluctance to complicate our groundrules even further, we'd probably make casual or a buncr or something. But being in front, it doesn't deter a run at the basket. The rest of our OBs are in the circle but further from the basket, far enough to have a missable follow shot, and rarely directly behind the basket, so the "aim point" can be to one side. For what it's worth, which is not much, since we're not hosting top pro events, or even high-tier ones.

 

[cabrando]

Probably to similar to ball golf for most of you, but I like the idea of having greenside bunkers. Instead of a penalty stroke added though, there would be some marker in the ground that you putt from if you land in the bunker, say 5ft away from bunkers outer edge no closer to basket.

I think this puts accuracy at more of a premium while still not penalizing the player with a stroke and giving them a chance to make good from an errant shot.

 

[JeremyKShort]

The main thing that I'd want with trees on the green is making sure that you can still find a way to putt around them. It may require a straddle, or an odd putting stance, but you do need to have some way of getting to the basket. being 15 feet away and completely blocked is really not desirable. But if you can put a little bit there to make it more interesting, that could work. I'd myself prefer to have it in a way that the trees are on one side, so that landing on the right is rewarded as the trees are on the left. Or landing short is rewarded versus long. I wouldn't like it as much if it's more luck where you're landing being good or not. It just needs to be reasonable sized safe spots to target versus just throwing it in there and hoping its good.

 

[johnrhouck]

But if a lie in the circle is so obstructed that the thrower has little choice but to lay up, that's two very unfun shots---the layup, and the tap-in.

David, I am completely with you on that sentiment.

As Steve says, taking an OB stroke is no fun. But I'd rather let you put a stick on my card and let me test my throwing skills. And I'm definitely not interested in testing my "climbing in and out of bushes" skills.

As others have pointed out, we would hope that it doesn't need to be an either/or situation, and that there would be a better place to put the basket. Or a way to limb up the bushes.

 

[johnrhouck]

For upshots, the distance from the aim point is roughly evenly distributed. In other words, you're about as likely to be 1 foot from center as 25 feet from center. (Because there is a lot more area 25 feet from center, the pattern of discs laying on the ground is denser at 1 foot from the aim point.)

Now that is a fascinating statistic.

 

[sidewinder22]

 

[mhulkman]

This is what I had in mind for smaller greens. The right side of the green and front of the green are wide open. The tree directly behind the basket is 15ft away and has been trimmed back to where you have a putt from under the tree. Slight downhill 350ft par 3.

 

[charris414]

Necro-bump ...

I'm building a course in Guilford, CT, and I've been thinking about this concept of smaller greens and how to implement it. I have two holes were I'm using large trees (>12" diameter) to create smaller putting areas. Bare in mind that in describing these holes, the course is heavily wooded.

Hole "A" is a 175-200' straight shot, slightly downhill. The right side has several large guardian trees defining the edge, while the left side has been thinned out considerably. This particular area of the course was slightly lacking in topographical features that would make for an interesting green. However, I found a half-ring of four large trees (again >12" diameter) that were evenly spaced with 5' between them. The basket is lined up in the center "gap" created by these trees. The green has been thinned out behind the basket as well.

Hole "B" is a long par 4. The initial tee shot is a straight tunnel shot for about 300' through massive trees to a generous landing zone (the tunnel is gentle left to right). The approach shot is then approximately 300', slightly uphill through three well defined and generous gaps (each at least 25' wide). The secondary landing zone is approximately 50' wide and 50' long. There is a cluster of 4 trees that are at least 24" in diameter that are in a "square" with 10' gaps between the trees. I'm toying with the idea of putting the basket in the center of the square in order to put a premium on accuracy with the approach shot. Again, this hole (although in the woods) is somewhat lacking for a topographical feature given that the secondary landing zone is mostly flat and relatively open.

It's not a design concept I plan to use anywhere else on the course, and I think it presents an interesting technical challenge.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

The primary question is: Are there compelling reasons to figure out a way to make putting more challenging either specifically for elite pro play, or for all pro divisions, or for all competition players?

Without this directive to really try to find a way coming from the PDGA, manufacturers/sponsors or Tour Directors like Dodge, there's no compelling reason to do the research and testing. Brainstorming and testing ideas within the Game Development Team at minimum become curiosities, or at best, an idea might become an element in a disc golf variant that some like to play similar to night golf or mulligan variant.

I'm sincerely curious - Let's say a person had something new, say some new piece of equipment. Could you sketch out the process, as you see it, from introduction, through testing and adoption, for us, as certainly not EVERY dgolfer is a gatekeeper? Delineate that path for us, please...

 

[roggenb3]

Wanna small green see Stony Creek hole 12:https://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=5006&mode=media&view=hole&hole=13&page=1#

No pics of the green, but the trees there are just like this fairway pic. You could be 5 ft and have a tree to go around.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm sincerely curious - Let's say a person had something new, say some new piece of equipment. Could you sketch out the process, as you see it, from introduction, through testing and adoption, for us, as certainly not EVERY dgolfer is a gatekeeper? Delineate that path for us, please...

History shows us that you need to create the product innovation and test it, usually with the help of the manufacturer who might be making it, and a club or TDs or leagues willing to try it. Depending on the nature of the invention, you can probably get X-tier status and possibly ratings could even be produced.

You can always go directly to the PDGA Tech Standards team if you want to keep the idea under wraps for awhile and try to persuade them and eventually the PDGA Board that your invention should be approved either under existing standards or an extension of them. However, that process will potentially be more successful if you do the initial testing as proposed above so you have more evidence why your innovation should be approved, even if it's just for lower tier or league play. Not every innovation needs to be for top level play. In fact, the market is bigger for rec play innovations and PDGA approval may not be necessary for success.

 

[Rastnav]

History shows us that you need to create the product innovation and test it, usually with the help of the manufacturer who might be making it, and a club or TDs or leagues willing to try it. Depending on the nature of the invention, you can probably get X-tier status and possibly ratings could even be produced.

You can always go directly to the PDGA Tech Standards team if you want to keep the idea under wraps for awhile and try to persuade them and eventually the PDGA Board that your invention should be approved either under existing standards or an extension of them. However, that process will potentially be more successful if you do the initial testing as proposed above so you have more evidence why your innovation should be approved, even if it's just for lower tier or league play. Not every innovation needs to be for top level play. In fact, the market is bigger for rec play innovations and PDGA approval may not be necessary for success.

Had Swiss rolls been done before USDGC? What about the hay bales at Goat Hill?

I think what you said before holds water. Need/demand comes first, then the innovation comes, building on what already exists.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Had Swiss rolls been done before USDGC? What about the hay bales at Goat Hill?

I think what you said before holds water. Need/demand comes first, then the innovation comes, building on what already exists.

Publicly unrecognized demand comes first to trigger the ideas. If there's public demand, you may be too late to get in the game with the big boys. For example, smaller baskets is an incremental change, not a real innovation. Introducing a target that's a technically advanced, solar powered post with lights and sound on contact with multiple ways to score would be more of an innovation and essentially a component of a new game.

 

[Innova63]

Wanna small green see Stony Creek hole 12:https://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=5006&mode=media&view=hole&hole=13&page=1#

No pics of the green, but the trees there are just like this fairway pic. You could be 5 ft and have a tree to go around.

Shortest hole (I think) on the course from either tee.
I have seen deuces through sevens on that hole, I have hit the basket from the left tee.
Ability to straddle putt is vital on that hole.