Do you like gimmicks?

[davetherocketguy]

You couldn't handle my rockets anyways...

 

[zenbot]

The reality is, golf is one giant gimmick made to look natural with fancy landscaping especially in comparison to disc golf. Terrain has to be smoothed out to almost carpet-like tolerances which means the massive removal of trees, stumps, rocks and other undesirable elements. Greens and sand traps are the apex of this gimmickry. I mean, who has ever seen a sand trap like whats on golf courses occur naturally? Whereas disc golf does something similar but at a vastly smaller scale. In fact, in most cases we'd rather keep as many of those undesirable golf elements as possible as that's the sort of thing that makes DG courses interesting.

I've made the similar points earlier in the thread. Ball golf has nigh-unlimited money to tear down anything that Mother Nature threw down and replace it with stupid hazards for the elderly wearing plaid pants.

*glares at ballgolfconvert*

 

[wolfhaley]

I've made the similar points earlier in the thread. Ball golf has nigh-unlimited money to tear down anything that Mother Nature threw down and replace it with stupid hazards for the elderly wearing plaid pants.

*glares at ballgolfconvert*

ballgolfconvert strikes me more as a floral pattern capri guy.

*shrugs*

 

[zenbot]

ballgolfconvert strikes me more as a floral pattern capri guy.

*shrugs*

Something from the William Murray collection?

 

[wolfhaley]

Something from the William Murray collection?

Nailed it! :hfive:

Penny loafers and no socks? I picture that as well.

Maybe a thin gold necklace with a locket entangled in his chest hair. A picture of his long deceased poodle Frida in the locket. Are we close?

 

[zenbot]

Nailed it! :hfive:

Penny loafers and no socks? I picture that as well.

Maybe a thin gold necklace with a locket entangled in his chest hair. A picture of his long deceased poodle Frida in the locket. Are we close?

I'm satisfied. I really would like ballgolfconvert's blessing though.

 

[DiscFifty]

you need a new poll....

uh...the current poll only has 77 votes. Need a much larger response if you're going to attempt any data mining.

 

[1978]

I think most people, like me, aren't answering because the poll didnt have good questions. I like natural rough unless it is because a course isnt maintained. I like raised baskets and artificial OB when it enhances the scoring separation and isnt crazy like that 15ft basket at Camp Caanon. So at the least, a third option needs to be included. "Both can be fun to play."

 

[autocrosscrx]

I like artificial OB as a concept to add challenge to a pro tourney, but I don't enjoy it when watching coverage. I hate it when someone throws a shot that looks good and is described as a good shot and then it skips OB. I don't like the idea for smaller tournaments where people aren't necessarily getting to practice the layout.

Same with raised baskets. I don't mind it as a concept to add challenge, but I don't particular enjoy it. With that said, I prefer that to baskets that are naturally raised in a rock formation or something like that, where you can have awkward footing and could suffer an injury if you slip.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

The reality is, golf is one giant gimmick made to look natural with fancy landscaping especially in comparison to disc golf. Terrain has to be smoothed out to almost carpet-like tolerances which means the massive removal of trees, stumps, rocks and other undesirable elements. Greens and sand traps are the apex of this gimmickry. I mean, who has ever seen a sand trap like whats on golf courses occur naturally? Whereas disc golf does something similar but at a vastly smaller scale. In fact, in most cases we'd rather keep as many of those undesirable golf elements as possible as that's the sort of thing that makes DG courses interesting.

Your ignorance is about to be revealed, my friend, but as always you are 'entitled' to your opinion.

Golf, as we now know it originated in Scotland, links courses by the seaside, right? Near the seaside they have sand dunes, and many Scots' cottage economy was sheep-herding. Granted? When your herd of sheep seeks a bit of shelter from the high winds, commonly found by the seaside, they huddle together near a wind-break - sand dunes. Well, with all that huddling and 'herd oscillation' in a small area, they tend to wear out the natural plants, many of which are grasses. They also cause some erosion and movement of the sand for the same reason. Witness the genesis of a sand bunker.

The point is that Golf courses as we know them, like many other landscape design 'objects' are abstractions and extensions of 'naturally occurring' phenomena. No one ever creates a thing entirely out of whole cloth. The entire game of Golf is actually a contrived abstraction of other human processes. We being young ignorant know-it-alls merely forget our roots...although we may also lack insight and due diligence...

Moreover, this 'lifting ideas' from nature shows why some people are put-off by 'gimmicks' and 'artificiality' in GC design. They wish to forget the fake-ness of abstraction; it helps them gain release. It's one example of how we humans like to fool ourselves and/or 'hide & seek' from ourselves...fwiw

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

Stupid gimmicky ball golf!

This is one example taken out of context of the rest of the course, however, on first glance, it does seem a bit clumsy.

A notable golf course architect, Desmond Muirhead, one of my personal favorites, was always working on the idea the the golf course, the journey of a round of golf could be analogized to the mythic hero's journey. We find this idea in the epic poetry of The Aneid, but a better example would be The Odyssey (also in The Bible and many other great spiritual works, but I digress). The idea is that each golfer 'is' Odysseus, who in his journey encounters and (hopefully) overcomes a variety of challenges, obstacles and dangers along the way to 'home'. For the individual golfer, this process mirrors the process of psychological development/growth, as each challenging situation on the course also mirrors a specific psychological hurdle one will encounter on his life journey. Carl Jung's work deeply examines these ideas but in a different realm. These ideas' various iterations undying popularity as stories prove their resonance with subterranean levels of human psychology.

 

[txmxer]

This is one example taken out of context of the rest of the course, however, on first glance, it does seem a bit clumsy.

A notable golf course architect, Desmond Muirhead, one of my personal favorites, was always working on the idea the the golf course, the journey of a round of golf could be analogized to the mythic hero's journey. We find this idea in the epic poetry of The Aneid, but a better example would be The Odyssey (also in The Bible and many other great spiritual works, but I digress). The idea is that each golfer 'is' Odysseus, who in his journey encounters and (hopefully) overcomes a variety of challenges, obstacles and dangers along the way to 'home'. For the individual golfer, this process mirrors the process of psychological development/growth, as each challenging situation on the course also mirrors a specific psychological hurdle one will encounter on his life journey. Carl Jung's work deeply examines these ideas but in a different realm. These ideas' various iterations undying popularity as stories prove their resonance with subterranean levels of human psychology.

So the contrasting gimmicky course would be Willy Loman's journey?

 

[Mr. Butlertron]

I only like artificial OB & raised baskets if they're used sparingly and there is a legitimate risk/reward scenario involved. Otherwise, they seem like a lazy course design feature

 

[Billyray]

uh...the current poll only has 77 votes. Need a much larger response if you're going to attempt any data mining.

I'm trying to work slowly, first get the right questions. Then we work on convincing him that 77 people on DGCR doesnt mean anything. If we go to fast, we will get him defensive again

 

[oldmandiscer]

I'm trying to work slowly, first get the right questions. Then we work on convincing him that 77 people on DGCR doesnt mean anything. If we go to fast, we will get him defensive again

"when something doesn't agree with me it's illegitimate."

 

[txmxer]

"when something doesn't agree with me it's illegitimate."

Interesting you should say that...I think that attitude is exactly why you get so much push back.

 

[davetherocketguy]

"when something doesn't agree with me it's illegitimate."

Quoting yourself now? Interesting...

Your ignorance is about to be revealed, my friend, but as always you are 'entitled' to your opinion.

Nice that courses in Scottland are that way but I think it's safe to say that almost every other course outside of that tiny area require what I am talking about. No ignorance revealed my friend.

 

[oldmandiscer]

Interesting you should say that...I think that attitude is exactly why you get so much push back.

Yeah sure my attitude is why you think the poll is illegitimate. Really most people love raised baskets and ropes everywhere.

 

[Ryan P.]

I think said obstacles are simply a choice one makes when designing a course. The other choice is to spend more time and money to make the features "natural" (read: human-made to look natural, i.e. less gimmicky), and at this point in the development of DG, we aren't close to that for multiple reasons.

First, we have a lack of money. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; the thread about the USDGC coverage shows that we, as a community, are at least hesitant that spending money is good. But this lack of money decreases our ability to make a course look natural. Instead of adding a pond, we add ropes, or label a road/path "OB". Instead of constructing a mound or interesting putting area, we raise the basket.

Second, we have a lack of time. This is related to the lack of money. People who spend time making a course don't have unlimited time (or even unlimited volunteer time) to make the course look natural.

Third, making things look natural is less flexible. For instance, someone can move ropes or a mando or raise a basket pretty easily. Moving a lake or a mound takes a lot more work. This flexibility might arise from the lack of great course designers or a desire to keep up with the game that has changed rapidly in its young existence. In either case, this is probably due to the sport being so young.

Simply put, if you dislike these features, have you considered doing something (contributing time, money, or advancing course design) to change them?

 

[oldmandiscer]

I think said obstacles are simply a choice one makes when designing a course. The other choice is to spend more time and money to make the features "natural" (read: human-made to look natural, i.e. less gimmicky), and at this point in the development of DG, we aren't close to that for multiple reasons.

First, we have a lack of money. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; the thread about the USDGC coverage shows that we, as a community, are at least hesitant that spending money is good. But this lack of money decreases our ability to make a course look natural. Instead of adding a pond, we add ropes, or label a road/path "OB". Instead of constructing a mound or interesting putting area, we raise the basket.

Second, we have a lack of time. This is related to the lack of money. People who spend time making a course don't have unlimited time (or even unlimited volunteer time) to make the course look natural.

Third, making things look natural is less flexible. For instance, someone can move ropes or a mando or raise a basket pretty easily. Moving a lake or a mound takes a lot more work. This flexibility might arise from the lack of great course designers or a desire to keep up with the game that has changed rapidly in its young existence. In either case, this is probably due to the sport being so young.

Simply put, if you dislike these features, have you considered doing something (contributing time, money, or advancing course design) to change them?

These features are created to make the hole tougher overall. If the hole's were already challenging they wouldn't be adding these artificial features. Right? Of course.

Lot's of courses are designed around open and flatter land and thus gimmicks are introduced to create some kind of challenge to the hole (usually for tournaments). The simplest and most effective long term solution is to simply make the basket smaller and properly sized. Now you don't need to raise the basket 5 feet, add miles of ropes. In all likelihood a fair but still challenging course would result. Players wouldn't be chipping around 300 feet to each landing area. How boring is that to watch? Give me 700 foot rollers, huge bombing drives. Let these guys play aggressive. At the same time then upshot accuracy is more rewarded, since that 20 footer isn't a gimme. So the overall game is improved in every area. Paul McBeth was right to ask years ago for a smaller basket. I agree.