Multiple pins - why?/why not?

[Cgkdisc]

On the other hand....

As the number of courses proliferate, there's more justification in different courses in an area catering to different skill levels, without the compromises of each trying to cater to everyone.

It's a matter of space available. Shorter courses serve more player skill levels and are usually the most popular in an area. However, my approach has mostly been to figure out the highest player skill level for an 18-hole layout that a site could support, then add layouts for three skill levels below that one via two tees and two baskets per hole.

I've been fortunate to usually have property available for a blue level (950 rated) layout. Then, have added white, red, and either green or purple layouts when park or owner wanted to upscale and had budget available to do so. Using UDisc, I've then been able to create hybrid layouts for even more options for specific skill levels. Look up Blueberry Hill at Highbridge on UDisc to see how basic and hybrid layouts can be done. North Valley in Inver Grove Hts is my latest upscale to two tees and two baskets. You can see the basic four layouts on DGCR here. I haven't done any hybrid layouts for NV yet.

 

[ray1970]

On the other hand....

As the number of courses proliferate, there's more justification in different courses in an area catering to different skill levels, without the compromises of each trying to cater to everyone.

I'm lucky that there is a decent variety of courses nearby and they seem to cater to different groups of people. There are short, easy courses where newer players and families can have fun and play is generally laid back. There are courses that require more skill and bigger distance if that's your jam and you aren't going to have to play through some guy with his wife and two kids because they're having fun on a different course.

I get that building one course to cater to everyone might make sense in some areas but I'd rather have a variety of courses tailored to different skill levels than have to deal with 36 tees and 36 baskets with fifty people simultaneously playing four different layouts.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm lucky that there is a decent variety of courses nearby and they seem to cater to different groups of people. There are short, easy courses where newer players and families can have fun and play is generally laid back. There are courses that require more skill and bigger distance if that's your jam and you aren't going to have to play through some guy with his wife and two kids because they're having fun on a different course.

I get that building one course to cater to everyone might make sense in some areas but I'd rather have a variety of courses tailored to different skill levels than have to deal with 36 tees and 36 baskets with fifty people simultaneously playing four different layouts.

I understand the old idea of one tee one basket per hole which is how the sport developed in many areas primarily due to budget constraints. Additional anchors were the budget option to add more variety and sometimes wooden tee boards were added in shorter positions.

I'm saying we need to strive for more course playability with multiple skill levels when course upgrades are needed or desired. As we expand the sport, even the best courses with just one tee and basket per hole should merit no more than 3 discs as a "course" but can merit 5 discs as a specific skill level "layout" either on its own or as one of the layouts on a multiple layout "course" where each layout is evaluated based on how well it serves players of its intended skill level.

I'm suggesting that both layouts and courses should have separate ratings in the future where courses that incorporate more than one permanent layout have a higher rating ceiling.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'll point out that if a course is heavily used with single tees/pins, it won't accommodate a lot more players with multiples.

I'm not opposed to multiple tees, pins, or both. They work well, in the right places, and can offer regular visitors some variety. But I certainly don't think they should be any sort of standard.

 

[ray1970]

My "home course" has 18 tees and 18 baskets. There are two, maybe three placements for the baskets on most of the holes. As an example, depending on where the basket is when I show up to play, hole 5 can either be 250' or 410'. If I play the course about once a week something always seems to be in a different position than the last time I played so I seldom play the exact same layout.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'll point out that if a course is heavily used with single tees/pins, it won't accommodate a lot more players with multiples.

I'm not opposed to multiple tees, pins, or both. They work well, in the right places, and can offer regular visitors some variety. But I certainly don't think they should be any sort of standard.

Actually, another tee, basket or both can increase course traffic and loading.

1. When a single course is above a player's skill level, they take more throws than players at or above the skill level of the layout thus slowing up play on the whole course. That slowup is increased when beginners play in larger groups than ideal and sometimes get in trouble in brush and hazards that rarely come into play for longer throwers. Install good layouts for lower skill levels and they get to play the same game of 2s, 3s and 4s as the longer throwing players and they'll also have some chances for birdie 2s and even aces.

2. Few courses are 100% packed all of the time. In the case of players with non-daytime work schedules, unemployed and retirees (a growing constituency for shorter courses), they can and will choose to play in the less busy course times. Many players over 50 have the time and resources to travel. When traveling with my GF, we only play shorter courses or courses with a second set of shorter tees and even those are usually too long so I'm making up shorter tees for her, scaled to her distance range.

I'm not proposing a standard but the ability to increase a course's rating by adding tee and/or basket to each hole if the layouts are also done well. A well-designed course for a skill level with concrete tees, good signs, baskets and benches is only marginally "better" if there are also short tee boards indicating natural tees on most holes and no tee signs or layout info in DGCR or UDisc.

 

[Cgkdisc]

My "home course" has 18 tees and 18 baskets. There are two, maybe three placements for the baskets on most of the holes. As an example, depending on where the basket is when I show up to play, hole 5 can either be 250' or 410'. If I play the course about once a week something always seems to be in a different position than the last time I played so I seldom play the exact same layout.

Yes, that's early school design v1.5 which was pretty common in my early designs during the 90s, i.e., having alternate placements (we told the park depts it was to reduce erosion by moving them around). However, the constraint was the skill level is typically the same for each configuration, and even if some aren't the same, there's still only one skill level served in any configuration.

In addition, feedback over the years from rec players has been they tend to dislike basket placements moving around. It can be embarrassing when they take their friends to the course where they've grooved their drives on various holes and they discover the pins were moved, especially when some pin placements are blind. Many tournament players tend to think alternate anchors are cool for practice along with using longer configurations for events (but not actually moving them during events) but they're only 5%-10% of players in most areas.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not proposing a standard but the ability to increase a course's rating by adding tee and/or basket to each hole if the layouts are also done well. A well-designed course for a skill level with concrete tees, good signs, baskets and benches is only marginally "better" if there are also short tee boards indicating natural tees on most holes and no tee signs or layout info in DGCR or UDisc.

You didn't propose it as a standard, but you proposed all new courses should have them or be under a ratings cap, which strikes me as pretty much the same thing.

When "done well" (an important caveat), multiple tees and pins are an enhancement and likely to raise the rating of average and good courses. But not, in my opinion, enough to lift them above great courses with single tees & pins.

Many great courses are so, in part, because they're on terrific properties, with lots of special features. Where there's a great tee location or green, often there's not an alternative that's equal, so the added tees or pin placements end up being weaker.

Plus, there are additional restraints to prevent transitions from being excessive for one layout, or another. This is doable, of course, but the design required in doing so may also rule out the very best use of the property.

As I said before, multiple tees & pins are good to have. They give players choice, and variety. But I think courses designed for the best use of the property for a particularly skill level can be great, too. Particularly now that there are other course options for the players they don't suit.

 

[ray1970]

I played a course in the Charlotte area (Sorry, I can't recall which one) with short and long tees. The long tees were literally all directly behind the short tees by maybe thirty feet or so. Just seemed really weird that you could play a 250' hole or basically play the same exact hole only 280' instead. I'm just not sure why someone would go through the time and expense to put in multiple tees that do nothing for the course other than to add a very marginal amount of distance to each hole. Guess they just thought having short and long tees was a cool feature regardless of how poorly executed it was.

 

[Cgkdisc]

You didn't propose it as a standard, but you proposed all new courses should have them or be under a ratings cap, which strikes me as pretty much the same thing.

When "done well" (an important caveat), multiple tees and pins are an enhancement and likely to raise the rating of average and good courses. But not, in my opinion, enough to lift them above great courses with single tees & pins.

Many great courses are so, in part, because they're on terrific properties, with lots of special features. Where there's a great tee location or green, often there's not an alternative that's equal, so the added tees or pin placements end up being weaker.

Plus, there are additional restraints to prevent transitions from being excessive for one layout, or another. This is doable, of course, but the design required in doing so may also rule out the very best use of the property.

As I said before, multiple tees & pins are good to have. They give players choice, and variety. But I think courses designed for the best use of the property for a particularly skill level can be great, too. Particularly now that there are other course options for the players they don't suit.

I didn't say all new courses or upgrades but new or upgrades in public parks and pay-to-play operations being designed in hopes of financial sustainability. Permanent multiple layout courses can provide a quality disc golf experience for more player skill levels. More skill levels served can increase participation which is better utilization of tax dollars in public parks and produce more revenue for pay-to-play (for financial sustainability) operations.

Wouldn't you agree that a course with two well-designed layouts produced by installing two teeing areas of similar quality on each hole is typically "better" (more players/revenues) than that same course with one set of tees removed? From both tees, players would be playing to the same "ideal" pin placement on each hole. It's also likely that the shorter set of tees will be more popular.

To summarize, "layouts" would be rated on how well they serve the skill level they are designed for, "courses" evaluated based on the number and quality of the "layouts" incorporated, and "complexes" evaluated based on the number and quality of the "courses" on the site.

As a blast from the past, the volunteer attempt to develop a PDGA course evaluation system (David, weren't you part of this?) specifically evaluated layouts, not courses although many courses only had one layout to evaluate. Here's a snapshot from the PDGA Course Eval system showing that layouts for different skill levels were evaluated. The file could be sorted so players could compare and rank all Blue level layouts or all Red level layouts as desired. Unfortunately, this effort fizzled out when the IT volunteers were unable to continue updating the PDGA Course Evaluation web page.

 

[DavidSauls]

I didn't say all new courses or upgrades but new or upgrades in public parks and pay-to-play operations being designed in hopes of financial sustainability. Permanent multiple layout courses can provide a quality disc golf experience for more player skill levels. More skill levels served can increase participation which is better utilization of tax dollars in public parks and produce more revenue for pay-to-play (for financial sustainability) operations.

Wouldn't you agree that a course with two well-designed layouts produced by installing two teeing areas of similar quality on each hole is typically "better" (more players/revenues) than that same course with one set of tees removed? From both tees, players would be playing to the same "ideal" pin placement on each hole. It's also likely that the shorter set of tees will be more popular.

To summarize, "layouts" would be rated on how well they serve the skill level they are designed for, "courses" evaluated based on the number and quality of the "layouts" incorporated, and "complexes" evaluated based on the number and quality of the "courses" on the site.

As a blast from the past, the volunteer attempt to develop a PDGA course evaluation system (David, weren't you part of this?) specifically evaluated layouts, not courses although many courses only had one layout to evaluate. Here's a snapshot from the PDGA Course Eval system showing that layouts for different skill levels were evaluated. The file could be sorted so players could compare and rank all Blue level layouts or all Red level layouts as desired. Unfortunately, this effort fizzled out when the IT volunteers were unable to continue updating the PDGA Course Evaluation web page.

I believe I did. I said in several posts that multiple tees or pins when done well are an enhancement. (One of the caveats is having two tees of "similar quality" -- sometimes, particularly on very hilly courses, it's not possible.)

I remember the PDGA course evaluation system. It was ambitious. And a bit tedious. It suffered the fate of similar rating systems: incorporated in it was a weighting of various factors, which may not have had the same relative values as users would apply. Which also added to the tedium, placing values on factors that didn't matter much to the reviewer.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I played a course in the Charlotte area (Sorry, I can't recall which one) with short and long tees. The long tees were literally all directly behind the short tees by maybe thirty feet or so. Just seemed really weird that you could play a 250' hole or basically play the same exact hole only 280' instead. I'm just not sure why someone would go through the time and expense to put in multiple tees that do nothing for the course other than to add a very marginal amount of distance to each hole. Guess they just thought having short and long tees was a cool feature regardless of how poorly executed it was.

Agree that just placing shorter tees in line with the longer tees is not ideal from a design variety/aesthetics standpoint. However, our sport has evolved to where a player's disc golf throwing distance determines their potential to occasionally obtain a birdie and possibly an ace on a hole.

If a course layout does not provide birdie scoring opportunities on most holes (reaching par 3s in one shot and par 4s in two shots), the layout is above your skill level. In the case of a 280 versus 250 ft hole, if your max accurate distance is say 240 on that hole, you're going to have more fun and challenge (and that's an important reason for playing, especially recreationally, isn't it?) from the 250 ft tee because you know you can "score" (birdie) when you play well. If you play from the long tee at 280, you have little chance to score (birdie) and are stuck with a routine par (less challenge) on your drive.

 

[ray1970]

Obviously, I could very well be in the minority but my take on the pay-to-play courses might disagree with your logic.

If I'm paying to play a course I generally expect that the other players on the course are like me and take their game (somewhat) seriously and probably have a good grasp on rules and course etiquette. I expect most of the new players, families with kids, and people who just don't have a good game probably aren't going to be paying and will be out on a public course somewhere playing for free. If I expected to have to deal with the same caliber of players on a pay course I'd skip it and just play a free course.

 

[ray1970]

If a course layout does not provide birdie scoring opportunities on most holes (reaching par 3s in one shot and par 4s in two shots), the layout is above your skill level.

Well that's just silly. By your logic there likely aren't many courses that would cater to my 850 rated skill set because I don't think I've ever played a course where I had birdie opportunities on most holes. Way to crush my ego.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Obviously, I could very well be in the minority but my take on the pay-to-play courses might disagree with your logic.

If I'm paying to play a course I generally expect that the other players on the course are like me and take their game (somewhat) seriously and probably have a good grasp on rules and course etiquette. I expect most of the new players, families with kids, and people who just don't have a good game probably aren't going to be paying and will be out on a public course somewhere playing for free. If I expected to have to deal with the same caliber of players on a pay course I'd skip it and just play a free course.

I made the distinction for pay-to-play courses between owners who desire to breakeven and profit versus owners who are fine just catering to better, typically longer throwing players (a much smaller slice, mostly male, of potential players) even though they lose money or don't get sufficient return on their time, mowing and/or infrastructure costs. Note that Maple Hill one of the top-rated courses, has four separate well-marked layouts: Gold, Blue, White and Red, which has increased its potential revenue as a destination course. Even then, Red level (850 rated) layouts have hole lengths beyond the distance range of most women players.

 

[Steve West]

Obviously, I could very well be in the minority but my take on the pay-to-play courses might disagree with your logic.

If I'm paying to play a course I generally expect that the other players on the course are like me and take their game (somewhat) seriously and probably have a good grasp on rules and course etiquette. I expect most of the new players, families with kids, and people who just don't have a good game probably aren't going to be paying and will be out on a public course somewhere playing for free. If I expected to have to deal with the same caliber of players on a pay course I'd skip it and just play a free course.

I think the separation of serious players from family-mob-golfers is one reason not cater to a lot of skill levels on one course. Both groups are more comfortable without the others around - especially when they might not be aware the others are playing from another tee to another basket on the same hole. That can smack of "crossing fairways" vibes.

Of course, the luxury of installing specialty courses is more appropriate for areas where there are already many courses to choose from.

For an area with few choices, I prefer creating a wide variety of holes lengths vs. more targets. As someone up there pointed out, very few players have ever experienced a course where every hole was exactly challenging enough for their skill level. They won't be bothered by not being able to birdie every hole.

Besides, courses that are too tightly tailored to a skill level sometimes feel repetitive; like the local player who designed it just put every hole where their 320-foot hyzer would land. With a variety of lengths, lots of players will have some birdies.

For most players, they also will not stay the same skill level for long. Over time, they'll track their progress by getting closer on the too-long holes, or racking up more birdies as more holes get into their range.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Well that's just silly. By your logic there likely aren't many courses that would cater to my 850 rated skill set because I don't think I've ever played a course where I had birdie opportunities on most holes. Way to crush my ego.

Not silly, but reality. If you're playing disc or ball golf, there should ideally be a configuration suited for your skill level on the courses you choose to play. Ball golf has design standards for about seven sets of tees with each established for a skill level such that players of that skill/distance level can potentially reach par 3s in one, par 4s in two and par 5s in 3, such that putting to hole out in one is a birdie. It doesn't mean players can't choose to play longer sets for fun and different challenges. But to actually play the game as designed, especially in competition, players are truly playing "the game" on course layouts designed for their skill level with the excitement of scoring birdies and possible but improbable aces.

 

[ray1970]

Not silly, but reality. If you're playing disc or ball golf, there should ideally be a configuration suited for your skill level on the courses you choose to play. Ball golf has design standards for about seven sets of tees with each established for a skill level such that players of that skill/distance level can potentially reach par 3s in one, par 4s in two and par 5s in 3, such that putting to hole out in one is a birdie. It doesn't mean players can't choose to play longer sets for fun and different challenges. But to actually play the game as designed, especially in competition, players are truly playing "the game" on course layouts designed for their skill level with the excitement of scoring birdies and possible but improbable aces.

I think my issue was with you saying that "most holes" should be able to be played for birdies.

What defines "most holes"?

If I'm not shooting-12 a round or close to it then I need to play an easier course or layout?

There are a couple of courses in my area where I've shot -10 to -14 under. I think I even went-16 once. You seem to be saying these courses are the ones that fit my skill set or ability level but I find these courses boring and lacking challenge. I would much rather play a course where shooting just under par is a challenge than play a course where shooting well under par is readily achievable.

 

[biscoe]

I think my issue was with you saying that "most holes" should be able to be played for birdies.

What defines "most holes"?

If I'm not shooting-12 a round or close to it then I need to play an easier course or layout?

There are a couple of courses in my area where I've shot -10 to -14 under. I think I even went-16 once. You seem to be saying these courses are the ones that fit my skill set or ability level but I find these courses boring and lacking challenge. I would much rather play a course where shooting just under par is a challenge than play a course where shooting well under par is readily achievable.

Just because you are "playing for birdie" does not mean you are scoring one.

 

[Monocacy]

If a course layout does not provide birdie scoring opportunities on most holes (reaching par 3s in one shot and par 4s in two shots), the layout is above your skill level. In the case of a 280 versus 250 ft hole, if your max accurate distance is say 240 on that hole, you're going to have more fun and challenge (and that's an important reason for playing, especially recreationally, isn't it?) from the 250 ft tee because you know you can "score" (birdie) when you play well. If you play from the long tee at 280, you have little chance to score (birdie) and are stuck with a routine par (less challenge) on your drive.

Agree that a 280' hole for a 240' thrower is likely to be boring. But a well-designed 400-450' hole for a 240' thrower should be fun and challenging (but you already know this).

For me, it is not necessary to have a chance at birdie on every hole for a course to be enjoyable. Some of my favorite courses are filled with tough par 3 holes, and some of my favorite holes are ones where it takes two good, accurate throws to score 3 (whether 3 is considered par or birdie, but please let us not go down that rabbit hole here tyvm )

But even on a long course, a sprinkling of reachable but challenging holes is appreciated.