Why do OB ropes suck?

[txmxer]

Several great posts in OMD's tiny basket thread lately. Posts about what makes watching DG entertaining. Credit rhatton and a few others. Watching the flight of the disc and hitting that perfect gap is awesome. Or a long throw in that drifts just a little bit to catch the chains perfectly. Seeing the disc fly is where it is at.

Then you have a course like the LV Challenge. Wide open. Throw anything you want, just end up in the right spot. It takes away the magic of the disc flight. You can have a woods hole and an open BOLF course hole and throw the exact same shot, but one is exciting to watch, the other, not so much. Not so much because it doesn't matter what the disc does between the tee and the lie.

That's not to say that all OB is bad. Sometimes it works with the overall hole layout to create boundaries and force players to shape a shot. But when OB is the challenge on a particular hole...it sucks.

Ultimately, any course that doesn't emphasize the path of the disc is going to be boring to watch IMO. Watching a 1200' par 5 is one of the more boring things I've seen lately. It's cool to see someone throw 500-600' once or twice. It's amazing to see Simon, Eagle, GG, Drew, etc. bomb a disc twice as far as I can throw. But once you've seen that, it's doesn't get more interesting.

 

[chevis]

... cuz they are ropes & not something natural. that being said, we aren't throwing cowchips at trees, so there are lots of unnatural things in dg. adding challenge is sometimes needed when there isn't enough natural challenge.

 

[DavidSauls]

Question: if there were lakes where that artificial OB is, would you feel differently?

*

Yeah, trees are better. Trees define where a disc may fly, and sometimes compel flight paths other than the easy hyzer. But OB defines where a disc may land, and comes with its own strategy and challenge.

Courses around me -- both public and private -- have lots of trees, and lots of OB. Most of the OB is existing features, such as ponds, creeks, walking trails, and roads, which are more aesthetically pleasing than ropes, even if they don't play differently.

 

[elmexdela]

Question: if there were lakes where that artificial OB is, would you feel differently?

*

Yeah, trees are better. Trees define where a disc may fly, and sometimes compel flight paths other than the easy hyzer. But OB defines where a disc may land, and comes with its own strategy and challenge.

Courses around me -- both public and private -- have lots of trees, and lots of OB. Most of the OB is existing features, such as ponds, creeks, walking trails, and roads, which are more aesthetically pleasing than ropes, even if they don't play differently.

id be pissed at the lake cuz id wouldnt be gettin my disc back

so therefore ob ropes is better but why does it suck moar

 

[elmexdela]

when im playing tbh i dont follow ob rules or even keep score so i dont give a damm if you put some random ropes up i aint going to follow them

ropes are a cop out excuse for a terrible course try hard to be interesting

 

[elmexdela]

some water also looks like shyte too like brp moat style on multiple holes

at brp i would rather they just have rope so i dont have to go fishing in chocolate milk for my disc

but i would rather play a lake filled course like delagoon than a rope filled course like winthrop

 

[txmxer]

Question: if there were lakes where that artificial OB is, would you feel differently?

*

Yeah, trees are better. Trees define where a disc may fly, and sometimes compel flight paths other than the easy hyzer. But OB defines where a disc may land, and comes with its own strategy and challenge.

Courses around me -- both public and private -- have lots of trees, and lots of OB. Most of the OB is existing features, such as ponds, creeks, walking trails, and roads, which are more aesthetically pleasing than ropes, even if they don't play differently.

I considered that and agree that ropes mimic something like a water line. But it still sucks moar.

A few water holes is plenty IMO. Variety is important as well.

Ultimately I just thought those posts in the never ending thread were really excellent.

Also, a course can be fun to play—it is DG, and not be fun to watch in comparison to a really great course.

I didn't hate the bolf course at world's but the fort was infinitely better IMO.

 

[DavidSauls]

Ropes (etc.) have always been a bit controversial -- often as a matter of individual taste.

I first saw them at Winthrop back at the first or second USDGC, and thought they were stupid and "not disc golf". Then I played a great private course that had lots of "artificial" OB, and it changed my viewpoint. About 20 years later I played the Winthrop Gold course, and enjoyed the challenge.

As maligned as it is, the USDGC has been very successful, in terms of prestige, live gallery (I think the tickets are up to $20 now, and still crowds come),and online interest.

Like other design features, OB can be done well, or poorly, and can also be overdone. I think the latter is part of the issue with using golf courses for top-tier events: too much OB, too few trees.

 

[ray1970]

I admit I'm not a huge fan of artificial OB but I also get that not all courses have the luxury of natural areas that can punish a player for a bad shot and cost him a stroke so they have to do something to create a penalizing hazard where one might not normally exist.

I think artificial OB can be done fairly to add challenge to a hole and punish the thrower for a bad shot but it can also be poorly done to where it basically punishes an otherwise great shot.

 

[aredoubles]

If you have a course on a piece of property that is wide open, I would rather have artificial OB than no OB at all. Without OB, those courses might as well be field work, with zero element of risk for bad shots. One relatively open course in my state added extensive roped OB for a tournament, and it elevated a thoroughly average course into a thrilling one that I enjoyed the hell out of. And of the dozen or so hybrid courses I've played, the best ones universally used extensive OB, and those that didn't were very boring. Gauging distances and hitting landing zones are very different challenges from the wooded courses that I'm used to, and I love the adjustments I have to make to my game as a result.

That said, watching pros on YouTube throw on wide open courses with lots of OB is much less fun than actually playing on that kind of course in person.

But I would also say - having spectated at USDGC numerous times, there is a lot of surprising technical challenge on that Winthrop course, that the cameras don't capture well. Because of how the OB is thoughtfully placed, there are actually very few stock hyzer shots, and way more shaping of understable drivers on turnovers with late fade back into tight landing zones, etc. You can't really see that on camera, because catch cams only see the late fade, and the tee cams zoom in and lose reference. Not every open course with OB on the pro tour is like that, but I'm willing to defend Winthrop specifically.

 

[auzcar]

I don't like artificial OB, it's just not as pleasing to me, some is fine but when they put a bunch of ropes out on an open field (like Winthrop) I think it's just boring and also difficult to follow on coverage. I think that the woods is where this sport is mainly meant to be played since it adds much more emphasis on shaping the whole flight, and this is coming from a player that compared to the competition usually thrives on open distance shots. I don't mind open bomber holes but then they need to be just that, bomber holes. On tour I think a really open par 4 should be ~900-1000 feet since a big part of the field throws over 500. If you don't throw that far then that hole is simply not where your skills should earn you a stroke on the field.

This might be an unpopular opinion (or maybe not) but for me Winthrop is competing for the number one most boring course to watch, along with the Memorial one (Fountain Lakes? Can't remember the name). While IMO the most enjoyable course to watch this season was Northwood Black.

I think holes in the woods with a clearly defined route/gap/fairway is the way to go, maybe with a couple of bomber holes thrown in.

 

[txmxer]

I think everyone is more or less saying something similar.

Ultimately, I started this thread because the posts in the tiny basket thread made sense to me. Watching a disc do it's magic S curve through obstacles is a big part of the enjoyment of watching DG.

I can enjoy playing DG in an open field. I get to throw the disc any way I want. I can throw hyzers, anhyzers, rollers or whatever. I can throw around an imaginary obstacle. Or just try to rip a long drive. That's what I do when I go out to my field. Nobody wants to watch that though.

You could layout ropes that mimic Northwood's layout precisely or the Hornet's Nest, but nobody wants to watch that. Speaking of Hornet's Nest, you can remember that Uli challenged the conventional wisdom on a PAR 5 and went through the dense woods to eagle a hole. Lot of luck involved, but that is fun to see. And it did not take a tiny basket to make it special.

OB rope can never match that tree in the middle of the fairway that you couldn't hit if you tried, but you can hardly miss when you need to.

Anyway, the entertainment of watching DG is about seeing discs fly their magical path. It's about the journey, not the destination (the basket).

 

[mojorooks]

Several great posts in OMD's tiny basket thread lately. Posts about what makes watching DG entertaining. Credit rhatton and a few others. Watching the flight of the disc and hitting that perfect gap is awesome. Or a long throw in that drifts just a little bit to catch the chains perfectly. Seeing the disc fly is where it is at.

Then you have a course like the LV Challenge. Wide open. Throw anything you want, just end up in the right spot. It takes away the magic of the disc flight. You can have a woods hole and an open BOLF course hole and throw the exact same shot, but one is exciting to watch, the other, not so much. Not so much because it doesn't matter what the disc does between the tee and the lie.

That's not to say that all OB is bad. Sometimes it works with the overall hole layout to create boundaries and force players to shape a shot. But when OB is the challenge on a particular hole...it sucks.

Ultimately, any course that doesn't emphasize the path of the disc is going to be boring to watch IMO. Watching a 1200' par 5 is one of the more boring things I've seen lately. It's cool to see someone throw 500-600' once or twice. It's amazing to see Simon, Eagle, GG, Drew, etc. bomb a disc twice as far as I can throw. But once you've seen that, it's doesn't get more interesting.

The roped off OB is also defines a clear standing point for spectators. The mohr and moar popular disc golf becomes the mowr this will be the norm for pro events as it allow for moer people.

Sorry. couldn't resist.

 

[autocrosscrx]

I'm pretty indifferent, honestly.

Give people defined objectives. I want to see discs fly and I want to see people compete.

I prefer playing wooded courses, but Jonesboro is the style course that I prefer to watch.

 

[DavidSauls]

Ultimately, I started this thread because the posts in the tiny basket thread made sense to me. Watching a disc do it's magic S curve through obstacles is a big part of the enjoyment of watching DG.

The odd thing is, it's one of OMD's pillars -- that if putting were harder, there wouldn't be all that OB. I don't see the connection. I don't recall any course designers ever mentioning that, and for the 2 local designers I know well, I'm certain that they'd use the same OB if the basket were twice the size, or half the size.

 

[txmxer]

The roped off OB is also defines a clear standing point for spectators. The mohr and moar popular disc golf becomes the mowr this will be the norm for pro events as it allow for moer people.

Sorry. couldn't resist.

LOL!

I'm amazed at where they allow spectators to set up. I guess it was GMC and they were sitting in the fairway. Not in the main line, but not OB and we saw them having to dodge disc.

 

[ejvogie]

The roped off OB is also defines a clear standing point for spectators.

I'd prefer if the spectators were limited to a 2nd set of ropes 5 to 10 feet behind OB. Fewer chances of a spectator affecting disc flight/roll and keeping it in or out of bounds.

 

[ray1970]

I'd prefer if the spectators were limited to a 2nd set of ropes 5 to 10 feet behind OB. Fewer chances of a spectator affecting disc flight/roll and keeping it in or out of bounds.

No way. If I'm heading out of bounds and I can keep it in play by ricocheting off a spectator I have a much better chance if they're right on the line.

 

[DavidSauls]

No way. If I'm heading out of bounds and I can keep it in play by ricocheting off a spectator I have a much better chance if they're right on the line.

Alas, I'm much more likely to be flying OB, hoping to get lucky and sneak my way back inbounds. I need that extra open space.

Then again, there will never be any galleries watching ME.

 

[ray1970]

Then again, there will never be any galleries watching ME.

I would watch you. Even if it was only out of pity.