What makes a great disc golf course ?

[Cgkdisc]

Water

Water for aesthetics only but not in play for lost discs.

 

[JuanA]

I think this thread is more about design, but I've found courses with a good club presence to be some of the more enjoyable courses I've played.

 

[uncle pennybags]

BBQ and/or pizza

 

[NDABRUSH]

Clean and friendly.

 

[IHearChains]

Water for aesthetics only but not in play for lost discs.

OK Boomer.

Totally disagree. One of the great tragedies in disc golf is a potentially great course set on a great piece of land, with a body of water *right there*, and not one single hole bringing it into play.

 

[IHearChains]

Above there has been some mention of long holes. But I would base that on par instead of raw distance. True par 4 and true par 5 holes, where you have to manage angles and distance to reach specific landing zones, those are what make me want to play a course over and over. Making fairway drives from a different spot every time I play the hole makes me think, and really adds to the interest level of a hole. Especially if the fairway drive involves a water carry or some other exciting hazard/OB situation. Having several holes like this on one course is what really elevates a great course into something outstanding.

 

[Whiskey_Jim]

The main thing is that the course is full of those cool online DGers and not the douche bag real life DGers

 

[DavidSauls]

Water for aesthetics only but not in play for lost discs.

A couple of discs is a worthwhile price to pay for a great course.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Water hazards with forced (not optional) carries where your disc is likely unretrievable/lost make no sense for a course trying to appeal to a broader public and on pay-to-play courses trying to breakeven. At minimum, there should be should be tees that skirt or avoid the water. Change my mind.

 

[mistabman]

I like a variety of shots. I was kind of disappointed in Flip City because every hole seemed to be a hyzerflip straight or hyzerflip turnover shot. I guess the name should have tipped me off. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful property, I was just disappointed in the lack of shot variety.

 

[DavidSauls]

Water hazards with forced (not optional) carries where your disc is likely unretrievable/lost make no sense for a course trying to appeal to a broader public and on pay-to-play courses trying to breakeven. At minimum, there should be should be tees that skirt or avoid the water. Change my mind.

I thought we were talking about Great Courses, not Commercially Viable Courses or Courses for Everyone.

Also, it's a bit of a false dichotomy, contrasting forced water carries with no bailout, with "not in play for lost discs". There is a lot of water in play, situated other than forced crossings.

"Great" is subjective and, to my taste, I've played 7 courses that I consider far better than #8 and below on my courses played list. 6 of those 7 have water in play.

Nor does it seem to have kept courses off this site's Top 10 and Top 25 lists, which is as much a consensus definition of Great as I can come up with, on short notice.

 

[DavidSauls]

Nor does it seem to have kept courses off this site's Top 10 and Top 25 lists, which is as much a consensus definition of Great as I can come up with, on short notice.

….By my count, 17 of the top 25 courses (this site) list "water in play".

 

[BogeyNoMore]

OK Boomer.

Totally disagree. One of the great tragedies in disc golf is a potentially great course set on a great piece of land, with a body of water *right there*, and not one single hole bringing it into play.

I agree with this but...

There should be a realistic "bail out" route that allows shorter distance players to reach land, presumably with greater distance/tougher next shot. Basically giving up any likelihood of a birdie, without forcing them to take a bogey (assuming a par 3).

 

[BogeyNoMore]

FYI - I thought Vision Quest, and the water carry at Stony Hill did this quite successfully: big arms may be able to shave a stroke off by carrying the entire distance.

Shorter throwers have the option of hitting a landing spot that leaves them a longer or tougher route to the pin. This allows the player to manage risk/reward.

 

[IHearChains]

Water hazards with forced (not optional) carries where your disc is likely unretrievable/lost make no sense for a course trying to appeal to a broader public and on pay-to-play courses trying to breakeven. At minimum, there should be should be tees that skirt or avoid the water. Change my mind.

I'd agree, for holes with water carries, there should be shorter bailout zones that make birdie impossible without a long throw-in.

But if you want to park it, it should be a risk/reward calculation! The risk is what makes it exciting!

If you take the excitement out of a disc golf course in order to achieve broad appeal, it is not going to make my greatest courses list.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Water hazards with forced (not optional) carries where your disc is likely unretrievable/lost make no sense for a course trying to appeal to a broader public and on pay-to-play courses trying to breakeven. At minimum, there should be should be tees that skirt or avoid the water. Change my mind.

With respect to the "pay to play courses trying to break even" (and even though your response is an off-topic rant) what do you even mean by that? Are you saying that forced water carries prevent people from playing a course to the extent that such a course is not likely to be viable? Well, Selah, Wildhorse and Maple Hill seem to be doing pretty well. Are you creating a moving target by inserting the "trying to break even" phrase so that you can blame the water carries for the failure of any course that is only marginally profitable?

I do want to note that the implied expertise (or self assessment of importance) behind the "change my mind" statement makes me wonder how many courses you own and operate, how many of them have had such forced water carries and failed because of that factor or whose profitability was reduced because of such holes - and by how much.

So if you can give those kinds of examples upon which you base your opinion, there's no need to change your mind. Your opinion will be based on facts. If not, then your opinion has no factual basis and the fact that you hold such an opinion is, already, a good indication that your mind cannot be changed. Never mind the Maslow's Hammer aspect to your post's relationship to the thread topic.

 

[DavidSauls]

FYI - I thought Vision Quest, and the water carry at Stony Hill did this quite successfully: big arms may be able to shave a stroke off by carrying the entire distance.

.

Stoney Hill has one (on one layout) that requires about a 220' throw, with no bailout options. (It's not the one on the dam, that most visitors remember). At some point, we just say that the course isn't for everyone.

We do have a short tee on the scariest water carry hole, and I've about graduated to it. But that hole has bailout options, too, though they're a little tricky.

Flyboy has the one that I can no longer clear. (Back when I could clear it, I didn't, but that's another story). I forgive them for it, and love the other 35 1/2 holes. It's a course for better players than me---or at least, players who can drive further.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The problem is this site is internally self congratulatory. Highly rated courses are great for those who play them and rate them. And that's fine for the target audience on this site. And of course this thread only contains comments from players on this site (duh). The problem is those who don't like courses where they lose discs are less likely to either rate the courses or rate them low perhaps because they may not want to seem like wimps, poor players or not financially in a good position to afford the loss. I suspect there are many rec players who have silently voted against courses with water losses simply by never going back to play where that occurs.

However, we know how much players hate to lose discs in whatever manner based on the number of lost disc posts, people going out swimming and stomping around to search, and people putting their number on the discs and good samaritans trying to return them. I haven't played ball golf in awhile but I don't recall hearing of an active community for finding and returning someone's golf ball. Of course, if you were required to forfeit your club to the pro shop each time you hit a ball in the drink, you would very quickly see ball golf courses with water hazards "dry up" faster than they are now.

I like to see water on courses, just not positioned aggressively if loss is likely, especially for rec players, even those who try the long tees. There should be a route they can take to avoid the water or at least cross a corner less than 50-60 feet across. Clear, shallow water, creek beds can be ideal as long as players can get to their discs. I look for those options during design but they're not as common as muddy, deeper creeks, some with steep banks.

I think if you go through the 100+ courses I've put in, many which have a 3.5+ rating here, you won't find any where there's a forced crossing where players either can't go around, can't play up to it and have a short carry across on the next throw, doesn't have a forward tee or drop zone you can proceed to and not throw across (Steady Ed - IDGC) or doesn't have water very close behind the pin. I've always been designing in ways where I hope every player wants to come back and play my layouts, especially those for their skill level, as if the financial survival of the course depended on it, even though very few do because there's little expectation of commercial viability in our sport (except in Maine mostly). If a player loses a disc for some reason, I'm hoping it's because of a riskier choice they made and not one I "forced" them to make.

So it's okay to have "water in play," but as a designer, please position it so the thrower optionally decides to take the risk of going in rather than the designer forcing a high risk loss beyond the skill level of even or highest level players who, as we've seen, cannot consistently avoid water penalties on tour courses. If they can't do it, why would you expect lower skilled players to reasonably do better?

 

[DavidSauls]

Are the "rec players" the measure of a Great Course?

(And by "Rec" I assume you mean the casual players who are having fun but not very good---not players in the Recreational division of tournaments).

 

[Cgkdisc]

Are the "rec players" the measure of a Great Course?
(And by "Rec" I assume you mean the casual players who are having fun but not very good---not players in the Recreational division of tournaments).

Great can really only be defined by specific audiences. So you can have a great course for tour and active competition players but it may not be seen as great by lower skilled players including rec/casuals who might only consider it "great" in the abstract but not for themselves. I feel that truly great courses, on public property or private property where the owner wants to come closer to breaking even, should try to serve as wide an audience as possible. And yet, the trend appears to be towards longer, tougher, more punitive courses as being considered candidates for greatness, although having better amenities can sometimes substitute for less than ideal design quality and the course still gets the "great" label.