Appropriate use of Drop Zones

[PastorofMuppets]

Forced water carries for me are no brainer drop zone candidates for tournament play. Pace of play alone... We have a 310 foot forced water carry hole and I played an event hosted by the course designer (no drop zone). Watched a card of 4 (MA3) throw 10 discs total into the water as we were playing down the other side of the pond. (A 390 foot water carry Par 3 itself, but luckily has a small strip of land off to the right to chip around on). Not sure how the FA4 division even completed the hole. Lots of players didn't come back for round 2.

 

[Billipo]

Since were talking water carry...

Decided to play a course today that I designed with an example of "long" water carry. There is a 210 ft carry when lake full. Tee is elevated about 5 ft above water level and close to water edge. It is a white level course with one set of tees. Tournaments hosts all levels of play. When I TD, MA3 and lesser skill and all FA divisions play from "Short Tee" (Drop zone which avoids water) Drop zone has a full size cement tee pad (only 2nd tee on course) with no water carry.

Notice sign indicating the tee option to avoid carry for first timers and casual players uncomfortable with water carry. Graphics hard to see but shows short tee (drop zone).

Picture to side of tee box to catch tee sign.

 

[BWoody]

I favor Drop Zones, since I came from the days when you had to unwind from missed mandies, or argue about where the disc went out of play, etc...
It's fair and consistent...my only beef is when the drop zone on an island hole is 75 ft away, making every missed drive basically a bogie. An average player should have a reasonable chance to save par at least..so maybe 35 -40 ft....?

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

...my only beef is when the drop zone on an island hole is 75 ft away, making every missed drive basically a bogie. An average player should have a reasonable chance to save par at least..so maybe 35 -40 ft....?

IMO, there is nothing so magical about par that every player who throws a bad shot should deserve a decent chance to at par. In many cases you put the people who make a bad shot off the tee in the same position as those who make a safe shot off the tee reducing the risk in the risk/reward proposition that such a hole can prevent. Of course this depends on the size of the "island" and wheter it is an actual island. If I can just throw OB, retrieve my disc and feel reasonably assured of a par because the island isn't big enough to make the putt a challenge, then why not do that? If a safe shot off the tee is not possible, then I would agree with a drop zone like you propose.

But I like the following general outcomes better:

Hit island have good chance at birdie.
Play it safe and have high chance at par.
Miss island and ensure bogie.

I don't think a person who decides to go for it (decides to risk a possible bad outcome) but fails to execute the shot properly generally deserves a "reasonable chance to save par." While I want people to go for it, I also want that option to come with more risk than laying up. Otherwise there is no real risk/reward decision to be made on the tee. You always just go for it because there is no penalty for doing so and failing.

 

[DavidSauls]

Depending on the size of the island and the distance to the green, the issue with low-percentage drop zones can be donut-hole scoring: lots of 2s & 4s, few 3s. It gives that hole disproportionate effect on the results.

That's mitigated if the island is big enough to land on it, and still miss putts; or if the drop zone gives a reasonable chance (not "reasonably assured") of saving par.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I favor Drop Zones, since I came from the days when you had to unwind from missed mandies, or argue about where the disc went out of play, etc...
It's fair and consistent...my only beef is when the drop zone on an island hole is 75 ft away, making every missed drive basically a bogie. An average player should have a reasonable chance to save par at least..so maybe 35 -40 ft....?

A better way to play an island hole, especially those with OB from tee to island, and get good scoring spread, which also avoids the donut hole or Bactrian camel scoring (two humps) is calling the OB area a Relief Area (806.04). Here's what happens. Land on the island, get a good shot at birdie or easy par. Miss the island, player MUST go to the DZ. Make it 35-45 ft away from target to give players a chance at birdie with an excellent putt. Or, mark the DZ 60-90 ft away from target so players risk a bogie and maybe even a double if they miss the island from the DZ and have to return to the DZ every time they miss the island from the DZ. How far to mark the DZ from the basket is a judgment call based on the size of the island and vertical obstacles a player's DZ throw must circumvent. You get a nice smooth scoring distribution purely from skill execution without the double penalty padding using OB.

 

[BillFleming]

I played a tournament with an island where outside the island was a hazard. So one stroke penalty and play it from where it lies. I liked that since I really didn't have the arm to make it to the island.

 

[BWoody]

IMO, there is nothing so magical about par that every player who throws a bad shot should deserve a decent chance to at par. In many cases you put the people who make a bad shot off the tee in the same position as those who make a safe shot off the tee reducing the risk in the risk/reward proposition that such a hole can prevent. Of course this depends on the size of the "island" and wheter it is an actual island. If I can just throw OB, retrieve my disc and feel reasonably assured of a par because the island isn't big enough to make the putt a challenge, then why not do that? If a safe shot off the tee is not possible, then I would agree with a drop zone like you propose.

But I like the following general outcomes better:

Hit island have good chance at birdie.
Play it safe and have high chance at par.
Miss island and ensure bogie.

I don't think a person who decides to go for it (decides to risk a possible bad outcome) but fails to execute the shot properly generally deserves a "reasonable chance to save par." While I want people to go for it, I also want that option to come with more risk than laying up. Otherwise there is no real risk/reward decision to be made on the tee. You always just go for it because there is no penalty for doing so and failing.

We'll have to agree to.... y'know....There are holes where there is no option #2 you listed above. You either make the island for a bird or par, or have an assured bogie. The penalty should not be so severe for a shot that is off by 3 %....you already have the penalty stroke. Meaning that a medium difficulty putt is needed to save your par...

 

[Steve West]

I favor Drop Zones, since I came from the days when you had to unwind from missed mandies, or argue about where the disc went out of play, etc...
It's fair and consistent...my only beef is when the drop zone on an island hole is 75 ft away, making every missed drive basically a bogie. An average player should have a reasonable chance to save par at least..so maybe 35 -40 ft....?

That consistency is a negative in by book. If a significant chunk of the field will go to the drop zone after one throw (or one throw and one penalty), then the players in that chunk are essentially competing against each other on a hole that's only the length of the distance from the DZ to the target. Holes that short usually don't generate good scoring spread.

That doesn't mean I'm anti-DZ, just that the benefits need to be weighed against the scoring compression for part of the field.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I played a tournament with an island where outside the island was a hazard. So one stroke penalty and play it from where it lies. I liked that since I really didn't have the arm to make it to the island.

Why is not reaching the island penalty enough? What many designers seem to ignore is that every throw a player has to make beyond the birdie score on a hole is a penalty (birdie or better having become the definition of "scoring"). Adding a non-throw stroke to a missed throw is unnecessary punishment that artificially magnifies a weak throw. OB becomes a weak design approach to simply increase the scoring average but not the intrinsic challenge of a hole.

 

[BillFleming]

Why is not reaching the island penalty enough? What many designers seem to ignore is that every throw a player has to make beyond the birdie score on a hole is a penalty (birdie or better having become the definition of "scoring"). Adding a non-throw stroke to a missed throw is unnecessary punishment that artificially magnifies a weak throw. OB becomes a weak design approach to simply increase the scoring average but not the intrinsic challenge of a hole.

It seems that par is designed similar to ball golf. Par includes two putts. So a par 3 would be: reach the green in 1, and 2 putt. An island hole is usually to make a short hole more difficult. If there's no penalty for not reaching an island, then it isn't an island (unless it is truly surrounded by water - which a lot of island holes aren't).

 

[Steve West]

It seems that par is designed similar to ball golf. Par includes two putts. So a par 3 would be: reach the green in 1, and 2 putt. An island hole is usually to make a short hole more difficult. If there's no penalty for not reaching an island, then it isn't an island (unless it is truly surrounded by water - which a lot of island holes aren't).

In this case, par does not factor into the math.

From an information theory standpoint, a short island hole divides the field into two parts: got the minimum vs. got the bad score. Whether the "bad" score everyone gets is one more than the minimum or two more, the field is divided into the same two parts.

The penalty does not help sort players by skill. They're only being sorted by whether they had to make more than the minimum number of throws or not.

The penalty only doubles the difference in score between the players who got the minimum vs. those who got the bad score. Therefore, the penalty does not make the hole act like a more difficult hole. Rather, it's like making players play the same hole twice in a row, but the score the second time is automatically always exactly the same as the first. Which is, of course, pointless - but makes the hole count twice as much.

Short holes are the worst at separating players by skill, so they should be the last holes you'd ever want to make count for twice as much.

 

[Countchunkula]

In this case, par does not factor into the math.

From an information theory standpoint, a short island hole divides the field into two parts: got the minimum vs. got the bad score. Whether the "bad" score everyone gets is one more than the minimum or two more, the field is divided into the same two parts.

The penalty does not help sort players by skill. They're only being sorted by whether they had to make more than the minimum number of throws or not.

The penalty only doubles the difference in score between the players who got the minimum vs. those who got the bad score. Therefore, the penalty does not make the hole act like a more difficult hole. Rather, it's like making players play the same hole twice in a row, but the score the second time is automatically always exactly the same as the first. Which is, of course, pointless - but makes the hole count twice as much.

Short holes are the worst at separating players by skill, so they should be the last holes you'd ever want to make count for twice as much.

Does it matter if we were talking about a large, elongated island with the pin tight to one end? Very easy to land inbounds unless you are trying to park it.

I'd think there would be a distinction between those that got close enough for an easy deuce (or made a long risky putt) and those who played it safe on the drive and take the easy 3. Then you have the group that missed the island. Minimum/ok/bad?

 

[BWoody]

That consistency is a negative in by book. If a significant chunk of the field will go to the drop zone after one throw (or one throw and one penalty), then the players in that chunk are essentially competing against each other on a hole that's only the length of the distance from the DZ to the target. Holes that short usually don't generate good scoring spread.

That doesn't mean I'm anti-DZ, just that the benefits need to be weighed against the scoring compression for part of the field.

I think we're talking about different things, sorry... I was only referring to island holes, not a long hole with a double mandy where it would be an advantage to just go to the DZ. It shouldn't be an automatic bogie to miss a tight island, you should have a chance to make a reasonable putt....

 

[DavidSauls]

I sense that many people in this thread, when they envision drop zones and island holes, have one particular hole or type of hole in mind.

The courses I play most often all have lots of OB, and include some island and island-like holes with drop zones. They vary considerably in length, island size, drop zone distance, and scoring spread.

My feeling is, like tight wooded holes and tricky pin placements and other course design elements, these can be done well, or poorly.

 

[biscoe]

Why is not reaching the island penalty enough? What many designers seem to ignore is that every throw a player has to make beyond the birdie score on a hole is a penalty (birdie or better having become the definition of "scoring"). Adding a non-throw stroke to a missed throw is unnecessary punishment that artificially magnifies a weak throw. OB becomes a weak design approach to simply increase the scoring average but not the intrinsic challenge of a hole.

While I agree somewhat with your general premise the bolded red is nonsense and using that verbiage simply clouds the entire matter.

 

[biscoe]

In this case, par does not factor into the math.

From an information theory standpoint, a short island hole divides the field into two parts: got the minimum vs. got the bad score. Whether the "bad" score everyone gets is one more than the minimum or two more, the field is divided into the same two parts.

The penalty does not help sort players by skill. They're only being sorted by whether they had to make more than the minimum number of throws or not.

The penalty only doubles the difference in score between the players who got the minimum vs. those who got the bad score. Therefore, the penalty does not make the hole act like a more difficult hole. Rather, it's like making players play the same hole twice in a row, but the score the second time is automatically always exactly the same as the first. Which is, of course, pointless - but makes the hole count twice as much.

Short holes are the worst at separating players by skill, so they should be the last holes you'd ever want to make count for twice as much.

If there is an appropriately placed drop zone (makeable but not a gimme) the hole will indeed separate scores by skill from birdie to bogey with an occasional outlier score as well. As David said it depends on the execution of the concept.

 

[DavidSauls]

Even better if the island is big enough to hit, and still miss the putt.

Hit island, park for a gimme = easy 2
Hit island, not parked but make putt = 2
Hit island, miss putt = 3
Miss island, make drop zone putt = 3
Miss island, miss drop zone putt = 4

Basically, two good shots is a birdie. One good shot is par. Two bad shots is bogey.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Why is not reaching the island penalty enough? What many designers seem to ignore is that every throw a player has to make beyond the birdie score on a hole is a penalty (birdie or better having become the definition of "scoring"). Adding a non-throw stroke to a missed throw is unnecessary punishment that artificially magnifies a weak throw. OB becomes a weak design approach to simply increase the scoring average but not the intrinsic challenge of a hole.

While I agree somewhat with your general premise the bolded red is nonsense and using that verbiage simply clouds the entire matter.

I agree with Chuck conceptually: on a well designed hole, a bad throw doesn't merit an additional punitive stroke.

Agree with John: the underlined isn't relevant to the conversation and only serves to muddy the water.

 

[DavidSauls]

I agree with Chuck conceptually: on a well designed hole, a bad throw doesn't merit an additional punitive stroke.

Nobody ever says that about trees, or dense woods. But I've had plenty of shots that hit early trees and had the same effect on my score that OB would have had.