without the ropes, winthrop would be a breeze. it's the ropes that actually force you to shape lines however aggressively or conservatively you wish. you can't just hyzer between the ropes and expect it to stay there. you have to shape the disc to stay between the ropes. and you can play it 300 feet at a time or try to bite more off. it definitely increases the risk/reward factor. go play there and you'll understand, i'm sure.
-
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)
Penal Design
- Thread starter optidiscic
- Start date
without the ropes, winthrop would be a breeze. it's the ropes that actually force you to shape lines however aggressively or conservatively you wish. you can't just hyzer between the ropes and expect it to stay there. you have to shape the disc to stay between the ropes. and you can play it 300 feet at a time or try to bite more off. it definitely increases the risk/reward factor. go play there and you'll understand, i'm sure.
Given the option I prefer obstacles
I'm sure ropes turn Winthrop from a frog to a prince. I'm just more into Kings.
I'm sure ropes turn Winthrop from a frog to a prince. I'm just more into Kings.
I'm really enjoying this thread and thought that I'd chime in about water. I don't mind some water, as long as there are layup options since I only throw 325' consistently on level ground.
Hole #14 at Maple Hill might be close to what you're talking about. Never played it, but have three Vibram Open DVDs so I have at least some idea about the hole. Here's a picture from the course page.
I also like the looks of hole #1 at Maple Hill, too, as far as water holes go. From the pro tees I would totally have to bail out/lay up. But for you folks with big arms, there's your risk/reward.
And to a lesser extent, #18 at the Whippin' Post has that risk reward flavor.
saltybigjim
Bogey Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 58
A tournament at one of my local courses was made much better by spray painting the ground to make OB and putting some bands around trees to make mandos. This took away local routes, which 3/4 of the field was appreciative of, and it added some risk/reward scenarios for shots that would normally be 'throw freely and take a 3 if you miss' type holes. I don't like the idea of those mandos and OB being permanent, but it was neat to have for a round.
Seems like you have made a lot of opinions about Winthrop and it's gold ropes without experiencing them. I think you should go see and play the roped layout. From my perspective they add an immense amount of tension and challenge as a player and they create an air of exctement and anticipation for me as a spectator.
I would just die to be able to use heavy equipment to create features for a course like ball golf architects are able to do. I also crave the quintessential property that has ponds and streams and elevation and a waterfall and large mature trees with no underbrush and so on. I have never had the pleasure of working on such a canvas. Like David Sauls said (paraphrasing) if you are lucky enough to do a course design, you probably don't get to choose the property. Someone else, probably a park department planner and or environmental/horticultural planner, will tell you which park and what part of that park the course will be. So, most designers are somewhat boxed into a corner before they begin, to a certain extent. OB can spice up a course or a hole that may be a bit lackluster and create more risk/reward shot options. I don't mind flags or stakes or rope. I got used to stakes playing ball golf. The white stakes that indicate stroke and distance really affect the players thought process on a ball golf course. Red stakes aren't stroke and distance but they usually cause a stroke to be lost. I have never heard a debate on whether this was "artificial" with relation to ball golf. To me, it is simply OB. I love the pucker factor of OB, tight fairways, thick brush and water hazards. I also like the pucker factor of relatively wide open fairways with rope or sidewalks or curb and gutter and water hazards etc. Gimmee thepucker factor. Maybe I am just a sick old man.
I agree with you for the most part.....I was just saying what I prefer given the choice
I never played Winthrop. I am sure it would destroy me and make me think a bunch off the tee etc.
When discussing penal design I was thinking of oob as a way to add to your scorecard without actually adding throws
A score of 80 at Winthrop might include 10 circles......A score of 80 at Iron Hill will include 80 throws as there is no oob
I think in a perfect world less oob and more shotmaking makes for better golf......although we experimented with a stroke and distance contrived oob hole and the pucker factor was off the charts
When you say oob it seems to say out-of-bounds to me. Is that correct?
yes oob=out of bounds
Stan while I have your attention
Big bias in my area against late/far from tee Mandos used to add challenge.....many say this is a sign of poor design
I tend to think it's griping by those who missed the mando lol
regardless I am trying to keep my mandos early and closer to the tee
Big bias in my area against late/far from tee Mandos used to add challenge.....many say this is a sign of poor design
I tend to think it's griping by those who missed the mando lol
regardless I am trying to keep my mandos early and closer to the tee
So I think I am missing the point. You stated "I was thinking of oob as a way to add to your scorecard without actually adding throws". An oob shot is usually assessed a stroke. Help me grasp what you mean by "add to scorecard, without adding throws".
If I played Winthrop for instance
I might actually physically throw 70 times but have 10 circles thus I physically only made 70 throws although my score was 80
At Iron Hill, I would throw 80 throws and my score would be 80 as there is no circles or oob
I agree with you on this as a general rule. I was influenced early on by Harold Duval who once told me that "Mandos should dictate the flow of play without coming into play", I mostly agree with this. I don't mind them coming into play on occassion, but I do prefer them to be close to the tee, if possible. In preparation for worlds this year I removed a number of mandos on the courses that I designed that I deemed no longer necessary due to growth of trees and brush. Some I removed simply because the shortcut route had enough risk and I probably instituted those mandos out of prejudice against thumber shots. (Feels good to confess.) I have played courses that were mostly open and mandos well down the fairway were needed for safety sake.
So what you are getting at is designing a good risk/reward course without out-of-bounds?
yes.....thats the concept
The thread was meant to talk about all elements of penal design
but the idea of no oob but heavily penalty intrigues me
It still heavily boils down to the piece of property. Terrain and wind are killer elements but, you either have them or you don't. I would love to be able to have fairway sand bunkers that are large and filled with fluffy sand that make footwork awkward for a long second shot. I would love to see some British Open pothole style bunkers that would not necessarily need sand, but would be formidable obstacles nearer to the green. Oh, what money could build.
jeverett
Double Eagle Member
Personally, I treat mandos the same as tight fairway 'gaps' that must be hit.. usually when players start complaining about these, it's because the allowed angular deviation from the 'perfect' line is too small, typically well under 10 degrees of required line accuracy. Say you have a mando tree 100ft. out, and the flight line to get to the basket is to travel 10ft. out from the tree. This is asking players to have an angular accuracy of ~5.71 degrees, in my opinion too difficult/random to repeat consistently. If the mando were closer, however, say 50ft., they would now have a required angular accuracy for the same shot of ~11.31 degrees, much more reasonable.
Thumber
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,712
LOL....shakes fist at Stan
Many designers miss the overhand when designing leaving the high overhand route wide open. On well designed courses the tees are such that the overhand may be there but it is high risk high reward, which is totally appropriate. Low risk High reward is what we want to avoid
Isn't a thumber simply another method of manipulating the path of a disc in order to hit a certain line? Why would a designer intentionally attempt to punish these shots? Would they try to take out good anny or turn-over routes? Or nice hyzer routes? Heck, should Maple Hill build a bridge over the pond so people can throw rollers to reach the green? Or install power lines to prevent over hand shots from going over the pond?? If the landscape is well suited for a thumber why alter it? It makes me think that these designers have limited skills, and wish to punish others with better skills. Very sad.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Dealing with thumber options is simply a matter what the designer wishes to encourage, allow or block like any other shot. I'd say there's more natural and deliberate discrimination against rollers than thumbers.
True. But sometimes it is slyly disguised as erosion control. Pretty funny.
Similar threads
