brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
-
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)
2017 Idlewild Open Aug. 17-19 Burlington, Ky
- Thread starter brutalbrutus
- Start date
See also: orientation of CVG's runways. Almost all are 18/36.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
Surprised we haven't got any, "That course has too many trees" posts. Not sure I would totally agree with that, but there are a couple I would cut down if it was my course. A couple of those have already fallen in the last couple years. Mainly I think they should cut that 12ft tall stump down on no10(old 8) on the left side not too far from the tee. It's already dead and it would make for a much more exciting hole, imo
Last edited:
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
Also, the first tree on the left side of no14(old13) There is already a tight gap farther down, so this tree is really only there to force a FH, or an extremely difficult turnover from the right corner of the teepad.
colucc43
Par Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 129
A few of the FPO players I talked with during the event suggested that some of the pars out there would be a little more realistic/the course would've just played better with a few trees taken out of fairways here and there, but they also qualified those statements with a lot of compliments about the course and how the event was run. Overall I'd say positive reviews on the course from them, and fans seemed to have enjoyed it in general as well.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,648
Just looked up runway numbering because I had no clue what you were talking about.
So, that's what I learned today.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,838
I've never seen a hole with such a wide scoring spread; not even that time I accidentally combined the data from a short hole and a long hole. This was literally off the chart, as I usually set the upper limit of the graph at 4.5 or sometimes 5.
Due to the "loudest voice in the room" effect, this hole had a big influence on the total results. I'm not sure I like the idea that the number of times you landed inches away from getting back onto short grass is such a big part of results.
Here are the details on the two "edge case" holes.
Due to the "loudest voice in the room" effect, this hole had a big influence on the total results. I'm not sure I like the idea that the number of times you landed inches away from getting back onto short grass is such a big part of results.
Here are the details on the two "edge case" holes.
Attachments
Dettmerb
Bogey Member
I saw Catrina play most of her 2nd and 3rd round. She was done WELL before that. She was talking to herself a lot.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I'm quite impressed with local knowledge and commentary about Idelwild. Thanks!
She seems to really dislike and struggle with wooded courses like Idlewild that force you to shape throws to fit the fairways rather than allow you to constantly play to your strengths and essentially force your preferred shots on to the course. To be fair to her, it was set up this weekend as a true Gold level course and she is not a Gold level player (nor is any female player in the world). So I'd expect there to be struggles and other issues affecting all of the women playing a course like that.
But, it's not the first time she's struggled with wooded courses that demand accuracy with a variety of shots to navigate the course. She had trouble with the courses at US Women's last year, and wasn't shy about criticizing their "lack of good fairways". And those courses were definitely more suited for challenging a Blue level player (970-ish) like herself in the same way Idlewild challenges the Gold level (1020+) level players. But they are all similar in how they require precision flights through the fairways and landing in the right spots to be in position for the next shot.
That type of course always vexes a fair percentage of the touring players (male and female) because there is an element of familiarity required to maximize one's ability to master the course. Call it "local" knowledge if you want, but sometimes the right lines and/or landing zones aren't readily apparent to someone playing the course for the first time (or who has only put in 2-3 practice rounds on the course before playing the tournament).
They (the lines and zones) are there and they're painfully obvious once you recognize them, but for those with the mindset of stepping to the tee and just trying to blast it as far down the fairway as possible, they struggle with the subtleties of placement golf. Not every 450 foot hole is designed to be reached by players who can throw 450+, but they all seem to want it to be the case or the hole is "unfair" or "flukey" or "stupid". Idlewild is full of holes like that, IMO. That's why it's so great.
SD86
Banned
Funny, I didn't hear Paige or Sarah or Lisa Fajkus complaining about Idlewood...
Some like open courses, some (see: Michael Johanson) love playing in the woods. It is what it is, Cat.
Some like open courses, some (see: Michael Johanson) love playing in the woods. It is what it is, Cat.
I'm debating whether I should post a review of the course, since I only played 19 of the 24 holes, and looked at three others, and there were a couple modifications (raised baskets, pin location change on 4, etc). The holes that were in play gave a severe advantage to the lefty. (I'd say holes 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17 had a distinct advantage to CCW spin, and 6, 12, 13 had a distinct advantage to CW spin.) If I do, I think it'll be a 4, which is totally a dissenting opinion to what is currently on this site. However, this has little to do with the trees and faaaar more with the OB lines, greens, and fairways approaching the greens. Hole by hole on the tournament layout:
1. Fine hole, nothing wrong with it. I thought the OB line to the left was a little unnecessary, but I can understand it since hole 8 parallels it (and no OB here would incentivize cheater routes on 8 far more). Pin placement was great, relative to the grabby cedar on the edge of the circle. In a perfect world I'd send it down the slope a little to make it play faster, but that would interfere with 2's fairway.
2. Again, fine hole, nothing wrong with it. Going into the tournament I thought it would play really easy but I saw a handful of big numbers on it. Turns out it plays easy when you don't overcomplicate it.
3. A sneakily demanding drive. I had three putts inside the circle and felt like I'd had to throw a great shot for all of them.
4. This was a stupid hole. The shorter pin position (425ish) would have made so much more sense (at least for MPO). So many quality players laid up, laid up, and tapped in a 3. I heard of just a couple 2s and some 4s and an 8, but soooo many "birdie" 3s.
5. Great tee shot, not-great green. I say that because the result of what you get at the landing zone, 400 off the tee, is a bunch of randomly spaced trees without a really preferential route. So I saw very similar, well-executed tee shots wind up with a perfect putter shot to the green (great!) or a layup to 40. It's super-pretty but I didn't feel it fairly determined "good shot = good result". This is a theme along many of the holes along the creek.
6. Fine. No major comments. Wish it didn't throw at a walking path.
7. One of the best par 4s I've ever seen. I hate mandos, but I want a way to prevent players from trying to throw over the top.
8. Probably should have been labeled a par 5 because the two shots that have to be executed to get there are so demanding, but that's not a big deal. I think I really like this hole, I just played it poorly.
9. Fine, no issue. Fits well between two long holes.
10. Weird distance, I saw only one player get inside circle 2 in three rounds. More of a 3/4 separator. I think it would make sense if a couple of trees were removed at a couple locations on the fairway.
11. Good choice for elevated basket, definitely messed with some players. Somehow I'm dumb and didn't even get to putt on it twice. Nothing really special though.
12. I really liked this hole. I think it favors the righty more because the second shot is more demanding, and a hyzer there plays for speed control better than a turnover or lefty BH roller. I wish 13's teepad was further from the basket, as I saw multiple shots skip or roll and interfere with a card standing at the bench.
13. Ugh. The defining feature (Y mando) is fine. I hit that Y mando perfectly all three rounds, moved left with fairway driver fade, and had not much to work with. This is another case (like hole 5) where so many players end up laying up to 40. And making the hillside a "bailout zone" above the green didn't seem to factor into play, because if there wasn't a line to approach the green through the trees, the bailout zone wasn't any more accessible.
14. This is a near-perfect disc golf hole. I would like it more if the right side (approaching the A-pin) was a little more closed off. I saw several players miss the intended line by several feet and sneak through and get waaaaay down the fairway, while near misses squared up the trees defining that gap. Although I am not enthused about several of the turf greens on other holes, I liked that this hole offered adequate room both before and over the creek to land flat and safely.
15. Another of the best par 4s I've ever played. If you execute good shots, it plays well. If you don't, scrambleville.
16. Ugh. I don't understand why holes like this exist. I had 5 bonus strokes on this hole in three rounds. Two of them were OB by less than a foot. (Two of them were definitely my fault, and landed way out. One was kinda in-between; I didn't see the ground play but it finished in the creek) I really hate artificial OB that was arbitrarily decided (e.g. not a creek), because it makes a foot out count the same as 300 feet out. This green would have been okay if the backslope had been safe (as on 5 and 13), but instead it led to either 18-foot comeback putts after throwing long OB, or players laying up to 60 and pitching over. Holes like this make me not want to come back to courses.
17. Ugh. This is such a pretty hole, and it makes so little sense as a disc golf hole. The most effective shots I saw were the ones that got lucky after trying to attack way down the fairway. The least effective, including three of my own, were those that played to the safe right side of the creek, and then attempted to approach (again, to 40 feet or so, or, like me, skip to 16 feet away... OB). "Lol whatever" is a great attitude for a casual round, but the randomness of this hole shouldn't determine winners of big disc golf tournaments.
18. Great finishing hole! It puts a premium on playing backwards--land flat in the center with a putter or mid, and then try to attack from further away. The further down the fairway you try to go, the more randomness and risk you introduce.
Course flow:
Worked pretty well with 15-minute tee times, but 8, 12, 13, and 16 were consistently backed up for at least one card. Most of these were because there is significant variation in how far the subsequent card can throw off the tee. I did not like that holes 13 and 17 had to wait on each other for the drive and putt, respectively. Hole 8 was occasionally disruptive to 9's teepad. 12's basket and 13's teepad were occasionally disruptive to each other.
Overall, I had a positive experience. I think if I was in the area, I would LOVE to go play Idlewild casually. It was a challenging woods course, and I like that style. However, I am iffy over whether I would travel to play a big tournament there again, because I didn't feel that several of the holes (and especially the greens near the creek) fairly rewarded what I felt were well-executed shots. That made me outwardly grouchy, which I really hate doing--it probably makes spotters, scorers, and other tournament volunteers feel like the course and their efforts aren't being appreciated.
I welcome your comments, especially from locals.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
I was the one spotting hole12 basket area for the entire event, and yea I was in fear the whole time of having to yell fore and ruining somebodies drive on 13. There were a couple close calls on air shots but the worst just happened to be when they were waiting and all looking back towards the basket anyway. I saw so many skips and rolls on that hole after awhile they all started to blend together. It was tough keeping track of all of them by the third day.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 21,985
How would you rank your pro tour courses?
GoldeyeGolf
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Messages
- 283
Funny, I haven't read anything that Cat said about the course, so why do you need to kick her when she's down? I know you don't feel she smiles enough for your liking (the women are expected to be in good spirits at all times-according to some). Is there some other reason you feel the need to be on her case?
Can't answer fairly. I've only played Maple Hill and Idlewild.
I am interested in: Smugglers Notch, WACO, Jonesboro
I am not interested in: Memorial, Nick Hyde, Utah, Ledgestone
I don't know anything about: the Jacksonville course
If you look at this map, the wind, almost always this time of year, blows straight down no1's fairway towards the basket.
I'm unsure why people think this course is so hard. The baskets are clearly bigger than trees and picnic shelters.
I've never seen a hole with such a wide scoring spread; not even that time I accidentally combined the data from a short hole and a long hole. This was literally off the chart, as I usually set the upper limit of the graph at 4.5 or sometimes 5.
Due to the "loudest voice in the room" effect, this hole had a big influence on the total results. I'm not sure I like the idea that the number of times you landed inches away from getting back onto short grass is such a big part of results.
Here are the details on the two "edge case" holes.
The bottom left graph would seem to indicate to me that the top level guys tended to push to hard on that hole and caused themselves to take higher numbers than they would had they played it a bit safer and played for the 4 off the tee.
They avoided taking 7's and up by pushing so hard off the tee even if they went OB they still had enough distance to save a 5 or 6. Though by going OB they doomed themselves to that 5 or 6.
Maybe if they added a circle shaped landing zone around the 450' mark or wherever that flattish spot is near halfway down. Extend the fairway a max of 10' on both sides to give the players something to aim for and give the guys who want to push it no excuse if they go for more than what is given.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,838
That's what it would seem to indicate, and if it did, that's a lot like USDGC where some of the 1025ish players seem to not know what to do with the unfamiliar challenge of facing a course that they can't easily beat with nothing but sheer throwing ability.
I digress. My point is that there's not much data for the higher rated players. See the little gray lines paralleling the 4s? That's a confidence interval. Wider means the results could be different because the sample size is small. It's made worse here because the data is thinned out by being spread over many different scores. So, any conclusions about what players above about 1010 did is somewhat speculative.
Similar threads
