Ask John Houck about Course Design & Development

[grodney]

Well, the 9-years-ago me, with Houck's head instead of mine. But yeah.

 

[johnrhouck]

John,

There's a discussion going on about the pros vs. cons of water/creek OB on a tournament hole on which I'd like to get your opinion.

Summary
Say you have a medium-to-heavily wooded hole. The line-of-flight fairway slopes down and then back up. At the low point of the slope, about 1/3 of the way up the fairway there's a small creek crossing the fairway. This creek is sometimes completely dry, but sometimes has water flowing at most 3-4' wide.

The creek is close enough to the teebox that no player is going to lay-up in front of it.

Do you play the hole as "OB if surrounded by water"?


My position
My contention is that landing in the creek area is primarily a factor of luck. No players are realistically going to change their shot because the creek is OB or not OB. Making the creek OB does not increase the physical challenge of the hole, it merely further penalizes unlucky players beyond the poor lie and probably additional strokes they already have. I think good courses should test a player's skill more than their luck.

Opposing Position
One viewpoint on this hole is that the simple fact that OB is present adds a mental challenge to the hole/player that is worthy of penalizing unlucky shots.

My Justification
My stance is for casual water because I believe that playing the creek as OB is overly punitive for unlucky shots, and they'd play more fairly with casual water.

OB can be used for protection (e.g. Tom Bass #14's wetlands or McDade/LINKS private property), but mainly for risk/reward. In this case there is virtually no risk/reward decision. Standing on the tee of this hole what are you going to do differently if the creek is or is not OB? I'm guessing most players will answer that question with "nothing". I'll agree that knowing there's OB on a hole will be somewhere in a player's head. But on the holes we're talking about it (a) doesn't change the shot they're going to throw, and (b) doesn't even really make them think about changing the shot they're going to throw.

On this hole no player is intentionally trying to throw a shot that lands anywhere near that water.

• Good shots, no issue; make the gap, get up the fairway. Probably take a '3'.
• Bad shots, will be in the rough with a tough lie almost certainly taking at least one additional stroke. Probably take a '5'.
• Unlucky shots (good or bad) that clip a tree are possibly going to roll down into the creek area. From the creek area a player is looking at most likely and additional stroke vs. a good shot, probably taking a '4', maybe a '5'.

In my opinion, making the water OB is adding extra strokes to an already bad shot that probably has a extra stroke naturally. Why? That's not a "challenge". That's not separating score based on skill, it's luck. If there's little water in there anyway then it's certainly (bad) luck if you end up there. Good golf holes are mostly about skill, not luck. In most games of skill there is an element of luck. But most players will agree that they'd rather have their score reflect their skill that day rather than their luck. Two players can make virtually identical shots and hit the same tree. But the one that lands 6" from the other and in the water gets an extra stroke on top of the bad lie. Unlucky? Yes. Unnecessary? Also yes.

Disc golfers have this (mis)perception that "Ohhhh... it's water, it must be OB". Why? Where's that written?

Fundamentally it should be decided if the hole needs OB there or not. If it needs OB for the intent of the hole then it needs to be strung and played OB regardless of the water level (like is done at Circle-R). Playing the hole as "OB if surrounded by water" when the creek is sometimes/mostly dry is admitting the OB isn't necessary for the hole.

ERic,

First, yet another quick apology to everyone for being gone so long. The good news is that I currently have four championship courses in development, all on great properties working with great great people. Second, I commend you, ERic, for such a thoughtfully-posed question. I really appreciate that you covered so many aspects of the situation, and that you presented a counter argument.

You make great points all the way through. And you've advocated a position that's almost sacrilegious in disc golf: that a decent-size body of water not be designated out-of-bounds. That's pretty bold, but your reasoning is excellent. As you describe it, putting a shot in the the creek definitely sounds like a matter of bad luck. There's no skill involved in avoiding a hazard that's so close to the tee, and only players who get a bad kick (and a bad roll, apparently) will get wet. Of all the people who make bad shots, only a few will find themselves in the creek, and two virtually identical (bad) shots can have very different results.

(As an aside, I hate to hear of a good creek going to waste. I'm not familiar with the course or the hole, so I certainly can't fault the designer. But as a general rule, when you get a good creek to work with, you want to use it to influence decision-making and/or to punish poorly executed shots. A 3'-4' wide creek is fairly narrow, so I'll generally be inclined to make the creek and beyond OB.)

If it's true, as you say, that the presence of the creek won't cause anyone to change his shot, then I wouldn't call it a real factor in decision-making. If someone says, "I sure hope I don't go into that creek," that's just fear. When someone says, "I really don't want to risk going in that creek, so I'm going to play a different shot," that's strategy. Based on your description, I completely agree with your assessment there.

Now for the bottom line: OB or casual? I think there's one more factor to consider, and it may be the overriding factor for me: precedent. Since creeks are almost always OB in disc golf, and since this particular creek might be legitimately OB on another hole, you risk confusing players by calling it casual. You definitely want to avoid getting into a situation where you're telling players that the creek is OB on holes 1, 3, and 5 but casual on 2, 4, and 6. My guess is that it's very rare for someone to go OB on your hole, and if that's true, I think I might actually want to call it OB. If it happens more than once or twice out of a 100 throws, then maybe I'm missing something in your description and need to reconsider. (Or maybe you'd want to call it casual on every hole.) But let me be clear: I think you are absolutely right to say that going OB in this case is just plain bad luck, and minimizing bad luck is a big part of good course design.

Thanks,
John

 

[johnrhouck]

What about birdie-able par 4s and 5s? I'm thinking specifically about hole 1 at Circle C which is a par 4 but isn't very hard to get in 3 if you've got a decent arm. Where does that sort of hole factor it?

I suppose what I'm asking is how you draw that line. Do you tend to err on the side of making the par too high so that the average golfer can shoot closer to "par?"

Good questions. Here's a simple rule I use: if you a have a good drive on a par four, you should be able to put a tee box on your lie and make a good par three. There might be a dozen or more possible good drives on a hole, and they should all leave you with a shot that's fair, fun, challenging, make-able, safe, etc. – a shot that has all the attributes of a good par three. On the best par fours, a drive that's not-so-good WON'T leave you looking at a sweet par three – but it also won't leave you completely screwed, either. If you miss the landing area or fairway but a little bit, a great hole will offer you the opportunity to make a great recovery shot and still have a putt for birdie.

The same philosophy holds true on par fives, too. If you have a good drive, you should be looking at a good par four. Well-designed par fives frequently reward GREAT drives with eagle opportunities. (But be careful: poorly-designed par fives often provide eagle opportunities to big drives, too.)

On par, the average golfer may not be able to shoot par from the long tees, which is why it's always preferable to provide tees that are designed for the average player, too.

Thanks,
John

 

[beastofburden]

John - What do you think about folks coming in and making modifications to your designed courses? Given that you're credited with the design in the long run, does this bother you?

My example is tees being moved @ Cat Hollow in Austin.

 

[gcr_russell]

Just had to say I love the article in the new DiscGolfer magazine. I would love to learn even more from you as I have read and enjoyed all the articles on your site, and of course this thread. In my pursuit of designing a local course I reference your articles regularly.

 

[ManU]

I need some input
we have a council person who supports DG and after years of loss of courses and a town of over 1 million having really only 2 poor 9 hole courses we may now have the ability to do something right and get some courses built

for a good quality 18 hole course how much land in general would be needed?
is 9 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 3 par 5s a decent ratio?

I recognize that hole length may be determined by the technical nature of the hole but in general terms what ranges of hole length should be incorporated for the 3s, 4s, and 5s?

any input would be appreciated

as for the land that may be available I think it may be a part of a 72 acre piece of land that might be gently rolling but not significant elevation gain/loss
the land may also NOT be heavily treed at present but the development budget could include money for same

thanks

 

[Cgkdisc]

John helped me develop this chart to estimate acreage needed depending on the maximum skill level of course desired and terrain: http://www.pdga.com/documents/course-design-acreage-guide
The 9 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 3 par 5s ratio is right in the sweet spot for a Championship blue or gold level course.

 

[Sadjo]

John helped me develop this chart to estimate acreage needed depending on the maximum skill level of course desired and terrain: http://www.pdga.com/documents/course-design-acreage-guide
The 9 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 3 par 5s ratio is right in the sweet spot for a Championship blue or gold level course.

Chuck,

With that chart what is Acre Factor?

 

[Cgkdisc]

The Acre factor is an estimate of the average width a fairway should be for that density of foliage. So for heavy foliage it's 100 feet (50 feet left/right) and for mostly open fairways it's 165 (83 feet left/right). You multiply the course length times the factor and divide by 43560 sq ft per acre to get the estimated number of acres. Obviously, there's non-utilized space in a course. But that's accounted for because you really don't need that width of fairway right off the tee. So the amount needed per hole is overestimated to account for the non-utilized property in-between and around holes. We developed those factors working backwards from actual courses on properties and what acreage was used/needed.

There's the old rule of thumb where you need about an acre per hole. Look at the Blue course on average foliage for average par in the middle of the chart and it's 18 acres.

 

[parrothead57]

Hi John,
I've played several of your courses in the Austin area and love 'em!

Question: Has any consideration ever been given to installing closer tee boxes for kids to throw from? We have a 10 year old that plays in our group and it seems she gets discouraged quickly. She only throws about 40-50 feet and I thought it would be cool if she had a closer tee box. I know its expensive to pour concrete but maybe pads or just a marked off area? I don't know how many kids play the sport but I bet they'd love to reach the basket in only 2 shots.

Also, rumor has it that a new course is planned for Dripping Springs. Please tell me its going to be a Houck design!

Thanks John, and keep up the great work!

 

[wkelly42]

Hi John,
I've played several of your courses in the Austin area and love 'em!

Question: Has any consideration ever been given to installing closer tee boxes for kids to throw from? We have a 10 year old that plays in our group and it seems she gets discouraged quickly. She only throws about 40-50 feet and I thought it would be cool if she had a closer tee box. I know its expensive to pour concrete but maybe pads or just a marked off area? I don't know how many kids play the sport but I bet they'd love to reach the basket in only 2 shots.

I played the Palmetto course at Blue Angel Park in Pensacola, FL, and they've got "Little Flyer" tees designed for young kids and total newcomers that are about 150' out from the basket. IIRC they're mostly straight shots, and are about the only way my daughter (9) and my sister (slightly older than 9) would have ever played the course with me. They have pretty small concrete slabs, but I'd think you could do the same thing with some patio pavers bought at Lowe's or Home Depot. They didn't allow much room for a run-up, but they made it fun.

One thing I've thought about doing on courses that don't have this is to make my own kids tees for my daughter, estimating 100-150 feet from the basket.

 

[weeman]

Hey John,

First thanks for everything you do for the disc golf community. You really are a true ambassador for our sport.

Second, I've been wondering this for some time and wanted to get your two cents on the matter. With different players having different skill levels, they will obviously cover a large area of land with their shots and their footprints. I was also reading about a course you designed in Massachusetts where you worked with the Army Corp. of Engineers about the environmental effects of the course. By clearing trees for fairways we are changing the character of the land, the amount of grass growing in the area and how rainwater flows throughout the land. Gradually, areas will begin to break down and erode especially on the main walking paths, near the tee pads and baskets.
In your course design, do you actively account for wear-and-tear that the land will encounter over time? What sort of erosion protection devices do you typically install to increase the longevity of the course? I imagine that this is initially difficult to pinpoint where the trouble spots will occur but do you utilize outside entities such as the Army Corp or analyze the environmental effects the course could have?

Thanks for whatever information you can share with me.

Wyatt

 

[New013]

Do you have any plans to build a course in north Carolina?

We need more courses with distance. The longest ones around are only about 5500 in length

 

[TheWCG]

John, quick question..... I'm sure you get asked this quite often and It may have been asked already in this thread but I couldn't find anything. So......?
-Is Course Design a full time job for you? I see that you have designed courses all over and I'm wondering how somebody would get into a profession such as Disc Golf Course Design? How do you acquire jobs? Do you work with a crew or just operate with volunteers? Do you charge for your design or accept donations of some kind?? Sorry for the "in depth" business questioning but I think we can all agree that Course Design, Traveling, Playing Disc Golf, and being outdoors, falls into the the category of a "Dream Job".... Thanks!!

 

[magictenor1]

I played the Palmetto course at Blue Angel Park in Pensacola, FL, and they've got "Little Flyer" tees designed for young kids and total newcomers that are about 150' out from the basket. IIRC they're mostly straight shots, and are about the only way my daughter (9) and my sister (slightly older than 9) would have ever played the course with me. They have pretty small concrete slabs, but I'd think you could do the same thing with some patio pavers bought at Lowe's or Home Depot. They didn't allow much room for a run-up, but they made it fun.

One thing I've thought about doing on courses that don't have this is to make my own kids tees for my daughter, estimating 100-150 feet from the basket.

when I played there my son threw from those very short tees. I think it is a great idea to encourage kids and total beginners to play.

 

[grodney]

The timeless course-design philosophies of John Houck. Read carefully, read multiple times. So simple. So good.

"
From: [email protected] (JRHouck)
Date: 1998/05/18
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc


Here's a simple rule I try to use on long holes:

1. From the tee to the preferred landing area should be a good hole. That is,
you could put a basket there and have a good hole.

2. From the preferred landing area to the basket should be a good hole. There
should also be "good holes" near the landing area, with the holes getting
harder as you get further from the preferred spot.

In general, I think players who can throw farther sould have the chance to use
their ability to get an easier upshot, but there must be a penalty for
inaccuracy.

As for holes that only the biggest drivers can reach off the tee (400'-450' in
general), there should only be 2-3 per 18-hole course, and there should be
risk. Players who demonstrate huge distance should have a chance to save
strokes during the round, as should players with outstanding accuracy or
outstanding putting.

Perhaps the most important consideration is this: all players should have
opportunities to attempt great shots during the round. If they succed they
must be rewarded, but if they fail they must lose strokes. If they prefer to
play conservatively and don't make mistakes, their score should be in between.
"

 

[GLong]

I really enjoyed your article on course design in the new DiscGolfer magazine.

Also have played three of your courses - Austin Ridge was my favorite. Wanted to play Circle R but there was a private event being held the weekend I was in Austin. Hopefully next time I can check it out, and hope that someday the East Coast may see some of your design expertise.

 

[Hangtime53]

Course design considerations

Do you recommend planting trees directly in front of the basket? . . say 10 to 20' in front. We have a new course in SW Missouri with a lot of mature trees that they've decided was not tough enough, so they planted dozens of smaller trees directly blocking the baskets. They may have accomplished their goal of making the course a few shots tougher . . but I have talked to several players who feel that the course has been sort of "cosmetically cheapened". The course has lost some of it's natural character. (Kind of like a golf course designer putting a bunch of pot hole bunkers in front of the greens just to get a higher course rating) What are your thoughts about this issue? Is a beautifully tree lined 200 foot hole considered bad just because it allows a direct flight for an ace?

 

[johnrhouck]

I really enjoyed your article on course design in the new DiscGolfer magazine.

Also have played three of your courses - Austin Ridge was my favorite. Wanted to play Circle R but there was a private event being held the weekend I was in Austin. Hopefully next time I can check it out, and hope that someday the East Coast may see some of your design expertise.

Thanks, Garrett. It's always good to hear that players like you are enjoying the articles and courses. As for Circle R, give us a week's warning next time, and maybe we'll be able to work something out for you.

And speaking of the east coast, I actually have two courses in the works. The South Pasture course on Nantucket Island is making god progress, as the local club is out there working hard at removing dead trees, limbing, etc. The first nine holes should be opening soon. I'm excited about having that one open, and I hope New Englanders will appreciate it.

I also just finished the design work at wonderful place on Prince Edward Island called Hillcrest Farm. That's a private course, and the Best family and friends are hard at work there providing all the finishing touches. The new pond we designed should be finished soon, and the course might be playable by the end of the year. We'll be postng some new pictures on our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/John-Houck-Houck-Design/154119344623917

Since they're on islands, both courses will require a little extra effort to get there, but I hope they'll prove to be worthwhile destinations.

Thanks,
John

 

[Jashwa]

blind holes

Hi there, I'm new to this thread and to course design in general, but not to disc golf.

How are "blind holes" (not more than 400 feet long) viewed in course design? Is it considered a positive or negative trait of an 18 holes course to have seven holes that require disc golfers to go about 25 ft away from the tee to see the pin? I know that a lot of people enjoy blind holes because it usually means there are some good obstacles or elevation changes, but how much is too much on an 18 hole course?