Ask John Houck about Course Design & Development

[roclover]

That's what I was thinking too. It just seems to fluky to allow the tide/water level to determine something like that. So how is the disc marked though? Let's say that I throw the disc and it hits the water while a wave is coming onshore. My disc is swept out with the wave, but if it had hit at a different time (maybe 8 seconds later) it would have hit sand, not water. Do you mark it where the disc initially hits, or where it comes to rest? Also, am I forced to play from the half sand half water with waves breaking around my ankles or do I get 1 meter relief?

I remember playing the Steady Ed course and seeing the stakes that you spoke of. How did you determine where to put them? Did you go by an average water height or bring it to one of the highest points to keep them from ever being submerged.

Thanks!

 

[Cgkdisc]

The Steady Ed stakes go just beyond what is known as "full pool" level for the lake. You can see where that is pretty accurately by just looking at the shoreline.

The rule is the disc location when landing in water is where it lands on its own momentum to the best the group can determine. So if your disc initially hits sand and is later washed away, the disc is inbounds at that point. If it lands in water, it's only OB if that point on the ground is always under water at least at the time you are playing.

An interesting way to play a long section of wavy shoreline might be to have a drop zone where you go if your disc lands where it's sometimes wet to always wet. If the point is always wet, the player gets the 1-throw OB penalty. If the spot is only sometimes covered with a wave, it falls under the special conditions rule with a drop zone but no penalty.

 

[jenb]

I've heard a lot of people opine that there should't be ANY ob within 10 meters of the basket. I think for some it just introduces too much luck factor. For others, I think perhaps they object that it overly encourages layups, thus discouraging exhibition quality play. Your opinion?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'll see what John has to say on this one first.

 

[roclover]

That sounds like an interesting solution. So in my case, I would find whatever the high tide mark is, and stake just slightly above that. Next implement some sort of no penalty drop zone for those who land above the stakes and are still swept away by waves and a penalized drop zone for those who land on the OB side of the stakes and are swept out. Correct?

Would you use the same drop zone, or a different one?

Find attached the 3 holes I'm referring to that are most affected by the tide.

Thanks again.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I've heard a lot of people opine that there should't be ANY ob within 10 meters of the basket. I think for some it just introduces too much luck factor. For others, I think perhaps they object that it overly encourages layups, thus discouraging exhibition quality play. Your opinion?

Excellent question, Jen! Thanks for bringing it up. :hfive:

I'll see what John has to say on this one first.

I want to see myself. I have an opinion I feel pretty strongly about, but would like to see what people like John and Stan have to say...
opcorn:

 

[Cgkdisc]

Same drop zone. The tricky part is identifying where the OB section ends where you go to the drop zone and when you play from the last point inbounds.

Another way to handle things would be to go USDGC style and require rethrows whenever the disc gets wet in any way. The only penalty is counting the throw that got wet. Pretty much eliminates a need to mark a line. The "wet" wave line determines whether a player rethrows.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Hi John. This is somewhat of an obscure/unique situation. I have a temporary course here where I live in Saipan (small island in the pacific).

Shouldn't the real question be "How do we raise money to make this a decent permanent course in the Northern Mariana Islands?"

 

[roclover]

Shouldn't the real question be "How do we raise money to make this a decent permanent course in the Northern Mariana Islands?"

I wish that were the question I was asking. Unfortunately the park has pretty much told me that we can never have permanent baskets/tees because it's affiliated with the National Park and we aren't allowed to change the land in any way. There are a few other locations that could work here on Saipan, but Guam has more promising opportunities and my dad and brother are currently working on setting up a course out there. In fact, I my be flying over there to do a demonstration/clinic to help promote the sport in the next month. We already did a little talk radio interview and we've been talking to locals and teaching people about the game in our spare time. So who knows... maybe the dream will be realized soon.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I wish that were the question I was asking. Unfortunately the park has pretty much told me that we can never have permanent baskets/tees because it's affiliated with the National Park and we aren't allowed to change the land in any way. There are a few other locations that could work here on Saipan, but Guam has more promising opportunities and my dad and brother are currently working on setting up a course out there. In fact, I my be flying over there to do a demonstration/clinic to help promote the sport in the next month. We already did a little talk radio interview and we've been talking to locals and teaching people about the game in our spare time. So who knows... maybe the dream will be realized soon.

Hope it goes well and good luck!

 

[Stan McDaniel]

Excellent question, Jen! Thanks for bringing it up. :hfive:
I want to see myself. I have an opinion I feel pretty strongly about, but would like to see what people like John and Stan have to say...
opcorn:

Well, since you asked,,,,,,,,, . My first thought is that I usually would not want the O.B. to be much closer than approximately the 10 meter range. The closer the pin is to the O.B. line the easier the come back putt becomes and that could be boring. If I want to put a pin in close proximity to an O.B. line I usually want the come back putt to be at least 27' which is not a gimmee for most of the disc golf world. That said, I do put pins much closer than that ocassionally. Angry Beaver #4 and #8 come to mind. They are short par 4's and I wanted to create some tension on the approach to the green. As Jen said, sometimes it produces a layup, but sometimes layups are not that easy to execute well, especially on a tight course. Knowing the the O.B. is close to the pin creates a lot of angst on the part of the thrower and as a designer I like to try to make you anguish over going for it. This is obviously a matter of personal opinion and just as I like a couple of elevated baskets on a course, I would not typically want more than a couple of pins close to O.B. on a course.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Thanks for the answer! I hadn't thought about one consequence of the OB being close to the pin being that the drop zone would be close to the pin, so there's a stroke penaty for going OB, but a relatively easy putt to hole out. That doesn't make for exciting disc golf. I would say that, in general, the more you let players' shots decide the score, rather than penalties and drop zones, the better the design is.

 

[Stan McDaniel]

For me, and a lot of the guys I play with, there is a definate thrill in the air as you prepare for a shot that has danger lurking, especially in the form of water. Not all property gives that opportunity so I try to sieze it when I have the chance. Perhaps that comes from my being a ball golfer too. Every shot around a pond, creek or the ocean sizzles with drama.

 

[Sadjo]

For me, and a lot of the guys I play with, there is a definate thrill in the air as you prepare for a shot that has danger lurking, especially in the form of water. Not all property gives that opportunity so I try to sieze it when I have the chance. Perhaps that comes from my being a ball golfer too. Every shot around a pond, creek or the ocean sizzles with drama.

That is so true. I think water coming into play gets into a lot of players heads. Even having water in v IRA but not in play can cause players to rethink their shot.

 

[johnrhouck]

Thanks for the responses, I'm thinking when I go back I'll relook at red and purple and think about moving them up so it's around 380' to cross. It makes more sense to make this a par 3 because the next hole will possibly be a par 4 that crosses the water on the second shot.

I would still like to know what John thinks, paging Mr. Houck.

Trying to get caught up here in the office, guys. These are questions that deserve thoughtful responses. I'll try to get back on this and other good questions early next week.

For now, as Linda used to say on Coffee Talk, "Discuss amongst yourselves..."

Thanks,
John

 

[grodney]

I don't know (or recall) John's feelings on OB within 10m, but he designed a hole on his Greenbelt course at San Saba with an OB creek well within 10m, hole #4 if memory serves, 228ft from all tees.

And of course other such as #7 and #8 on the Meadow at Wimberley, and I'm guessing more than 1 at Selah.

 

[johnrhouck]

I'm curios about trends in current tee design.

I know the PDGA says "Cement or Asphalt tees are preferred" but lately it seems the trend in new course development is to use stay mat on tee pads, sometime placed on top of cement, pavers, or right on top of the ground. One course in our area, recently redesigned, used a combo of Stay Mat placed upon leveled out crushed stone that was bordered using 4x4's or larger stones.

What have you seen as the desire of disc golfers, course owners, and is stay mat where it's at?

Thanks!

forgive me if this was answered, it's a long thread and read most of it...

Tee, I'm not aware of a lot of courses using Stay Mat, and I've never worked with it myself, so I can't really comment on how good it is. I know some places have used pavers, and I've heard very mixed results. It does seem that if you do it right, pavers can be a good option, but again I have no personal experience.

We've discussed both in the DG Course Designers group, and one prominent designer did present a good case for Stay Mat being pervious, immune to frost heave, and having good footing.

At this point I'd say that concrete is still the preferred option, but we're always looking for something better.

 

[johnrhouck]

Hi again. This is another design idea I've been working on. I have a great course I've been working on for the last year in Saipan, a small island in the Pacific Ocean near Guam. Unfortunately, it's in a National Park, so I doubt they'd ever let me permanently install the course. As of now, I've been playing with a few friends weekly carrying my portable basket as we go.

I was very inspired by your article on designing Par 5's and have been trying out different ideas. This is my current design on hole 18 at the park. It is meant to be a gold level hole.

Sorry for the poor quality picture, I just drew it up in Microsoft Paint.

Feedback and critiques are what I'm looking for the most. I don't have many fellow Disc Golfers out here on the islands. Thanks.

Roclover, it looks like you've been doing a lot of serious thinking on course design, and I think you're definitely heading in the right direction. First on your par 5 idea.

I can see that you really "got" the concepts I wrote about in the magazine, and it looks like your hole could work pretty well. I think Chuck might ultimately be right about how many people would try it, and here's why:

1. The Eagle landing area looks pretty small. Could just be a scale issue.
2. There's a psychology about throwing a shot that's farther from the pin in order to get a better shot. That's counter-intutive, and it's a tough sell to get players to go that way. You're asking them to throw a shot that finishes away from the green -- it would be better if it were closer to the green.

Also, I thought your distances were pretty good, until I saw that you said it was designed for gold level. The holes I wrote about were more for blue, but gold players could go for the big shot -- that's what your looks like to me. My problem is when you say that the safe shot is a fairly open 300' drive, that's a bit shot for gold. Hope that makes sense.

Now here's my main concern. I really don't want to encourage people to make permanent holes like this that rely on big artificial OB areas. Obviously that's our call, and some people don't have a problem with it, but I'm just not a fan. In fact, I'm not much in favor of artificial OB for tournaments, except for the USDGC, which is a completely different animal.

Maybe the area you have marked as OB is naturally swampy or something, which would be different. But here's something that might be a more elegant solution: if you're committed to OB there, have the OB run from 300' to maybe 450', then anyone wanting to go for the Eagle can risk carrying the OB, and you can have a nice big landing area that's in line with the rest of the fairway.

As for your V green, I'm not sure I understand exactly what your vision is. My only comments would be that it sounds like there's a good concept at the heart. I get nervous when you talk about drives down the middle kicking into the water, and when you mention a skinny creek. Wider obstacles, be they trees or creek, will reduce flukiness.

Gotta run.

 

[johnrhouck]

Sounds like using the ball golf "links" style hazard method might be needed. You can have areas marked as OB if you land in them and some could be Buncrs where you must move back to the edge of the buncr on the line of play but with no penalty.

Also worth looking at in the "no tree" situation.

We've recently been approached to design a course that has no trees. Also has no elevation. I'll let you know if I come up with anything.

Thinking links sounds like a good way to start.

 

[roclover]

Roclover, it looks like you've been doing a lot of serious thinking on course design, and I think you're definitely heading in the right direction. First on your par 5 idea.

I can see that you really "got" the concepts I wrote about in the magazine, and it looks like your hole could work pretty well. I think Chuck might ultimately be right about how many people would try it, and here's why:

1. The Eagle landing area looks pretty small. Could just be a scale issue.
2. There's a psychology about throwing a shot that's farther from the pin in order to get a better shot. That's counter-intutive, and it's a tough sell to get players to go that way. You're asking them to throw a shot that finishes away from the green -- it would be better if it were closer to the green.

Also, I thought your distances were pretty good, until I saw that you said it was designed for gold level. The holes I wrote about were more for blue, but gold players could go for the big shot -- that's what your looks like to me. My problem is when you say that the safe shot is a fairly open 300' drive, that's a bit shot for gold. Hope that makes sense.

Now here's my main concern. I really don't want to encourage people to make permanent holes like this that rely on big artificial OB areas. Obviously that's our call, and some people don't have a problem with it, but I'm just not a fan. In fact, I'm not much in favor of artificial OB for tournaments, except for the USDGC, which is a completely different animal.

Maybe the area you have marked as OB is naturally swampy or something, which would be different. But here's something that might be a more elegant solution: if you're committed to OB there, have the OB run from 300' to maybe 450', then anyone wanting to go for the Eagle can risk carrying the OB, and you can have a nice big landing area that's in line with the rest of the fairway.


Gotta run.

Thanks for the feedback, I have no intention of making this a permanent hole. As I said, it's a National Park so that is not much of an option, but it's been a great way to experiment with different design ideas and then test them out on myself and my buddies. I know I marked it as Gold and in other cases Blue, but it's really more of a blue/gold or high blue, low gold... basically I'm trying to make the best holes for my friends and myself who rate in the 940's - 990's.

I was confused with something in your message, which shot is to short, the 300 ft layup short of the OB or 300 ft shot to clear the OB.

Thanks for the feedback about the eagle landing zone. Would you suggest making it angled or just totally straight? Example top left corner of fairway clearing OB is 490 ft away from tee, bottom right is 440 ft away from tee.

Also, I know where you're coming from on the whole artificial OB thing in permanent courses, but I was surprised that you don't even like them for tournaments outside of the USDGC. It makes me curious, what's your opinion of some of the European courses? I think a lot of people watch videos of the courses in Europe and find them to be really interesting and exciting... but it sounds like you may have a different opinion? Please share your thoughts.

Thanks!