Ask John Houck about Course Design & Development

[johnrhouck]

A slight adjustment to make the peninsula in play (and remove the "you can't go there because I say so and I'm your dad" mando mentality):

Woops - I just realized I forgot to remove the original location of the Red tee (it should not be there any more)

It do not know if the shout out to the big arms (380') messes with the mix of that aspect of the course.....but I'll be scoring spread would work out very well for Blue. And, I really like the additional layup choices (each with their own risk/reward) that are added in this config.

Dave,

Interesting changes. A couple quick thoughts:

1. Laying up to the peninsula (where you now have the short tee) is still 150' pitch with no trees. Yes, it drops off on three sides, so it's a little tricky, but I'd still say it's NAGS. As you mention, it does change the layup options (your new 150' + 230' or the old 200'+200'), and that's a good thing in theory. I just couldn't endorse that 150' pitch off the tee.

2. At 380', there will be virtually no birdies, so the risk becomes way too great for all but the most skillful (or most reckless) players.

All in all I'd say nice try. I just would not consider it a net improvement.

 

[Dave242]

Thanks for the feedback

1. Laying up to the peninsula (where you now have the short tee) is still 150' pitch with no trees. Yes, it drops off on three sides, so it's a little tricky, but I'd still say it's NAGS. As you mention, it does change the layup options (your new 150' + 230' or the old 200'+200'), and that's a good thing in theory. I just couldn't endorse that 150' pitch off the tee.

Is NAGS "not a good solution" or something else (a google search of that acronym came with lots of results, but nothing helpful)?

I guess, my only motivation was to get rid of the artificial OB which to some (not to me) shouts out "its that way because I say its that way, and I',m your father".

2. At 380', there will be virtually no birdies, so the risk becomes way too great for all but the most skillful (or most reckless) players.

All in all I'd say nice try. I just would not consider it a net improvement.

I agree with this too. That's why I made my point of long par-3's and how they add to the mix of holes on the course. I should have added that a few hard par-3's are OK in my book, while others feel you need a good amount of birdies available to make a hole good (both for fun and scoring separation/spread). And, I guess you do not agree with the internet minions who feel like they can consistently score well on holes in the 400-450' range.

 

[tbird888]

Is NAGS "not a good solution" or something else (a google search of that acronym came with lots of results, but nothing helpful)?

Not A Golf Shot

 

[aardvarkious]

Aardvarkious,

Sorry it took so long to get back on this one.

I'm glad you're concerned about keeping players out of each other's fairways. Where I'm having trouble is reconciling your desire to make it an "ace run" with your desire to use OB.

OB behind the basket, even within 75' feet I would think, will encourage people to lay up, not run at the pin. The tighter you make the OB on the right side, the less people will want to run at it. Even the woods 30' away will encourage players to be more cautious.

I'm not a big fan of artificial OB just to make a hole tougher. Is there a way you can stick the tee in the woods -- that could be a good way to keep players off of the other fairway. Other than that, I think the biggest factor will be how the hole fits into the rest of the course. If you have several other 300' holes, then maybe you want this one to be shorter, etc.

Hope that helps a little.

Thanks,
John

Thanks for the reply! I live in the boonies of Northern Canada, so haven't got to play a whole lot of courses. This is also the first one I have designed, so am trying to learn the ins-and-outs.

To be honest, I don't like this hole. It is the only hole on the course I don't like. We have 17 good holes, and then this one. However, it is important for course flow and, if we want a full 18 holes, there are no better holes on the land that we can find. For a year now, we have been looking for a better hole but just can't find one.

We can't stick the pin in the woods- there is no decent clearing, and we are not allowed to make on.

The problem with this hole is just that it is boring. It is a straight shot on an open field. Besides protecting the other fairway, the OB was a way to add some danger to the hole and make it a little less boring. Before, everyone would play way to the right to not risk the woods and their drive would give them a likely birdie and a guaranteed par if they missed the putt. Now the OB forces them to go down the middle- they can't just play way to the right to stay out of the woods.

So, I guess my question is: obviously, artificial OB to toughen a hole is not ideal and should be avoided if possible. However, when there is no other choice, would you rather see an easy hole that plays "naturally," or one that has OB? Because other than where to place the OB, I have also been questioning whether I should have it in the first place.

 

[Cgkdisc]

One thing you could do is to build a mound or stand to raise the pin 2-3 feet. I would also look at running the OB line from left of the tee diagonally down the fairway so the line gets about as far right as you've shown it maybe 40 feet before the pin and it would strighten out like you ahve it near the pin. Players would have to fly over OB for awhile and probably cheat to the left toward the trees making it tougher to land inbounds. And those that do end up inbounds will have that uphill putt to your elevated pin.

 

[BZoods]

John,

My home course Brengle Terrace Park has a hole that I feel could be greatly improved upon.

I've included a screenshot of the hole in Google Earth so you can get a feel for the hole. The trees are too thick for it to be a straight shot, and the best line is either LHBH/RHFH or a turnover for RHBH. As the crow flies, it's 278 feet from tee to basket, with ~75ft in elevation gain.

In this image, you can see the hole from the tee. At the point where the trees are, the fairway bends to the right. There's a solitary tree at the base of the hill in the middle. There is a gap to the left and then a short tree that can be thrown over without much issue. To the right of the middle tree is a bunch of small gaps... the best lines to the basket are through these "gaps" (turnover shot is still required)

At the point where the trees come into play is ~200ft out which plays much closer to 300ft because of the elevation gain. The problem is that the people that have the distance to approach the circle off the tee don't have the best lines at the basket. There are gaps, but they aren't that large or they are too far to the left for most turnovers to come in far enough (so still not a great chance at birdie)

Anyone that can throw 300' can just put their shot to the base of the hill and have a fairly routine upshot to the circle for a 3. Of all the people I play with that have the distance to get up the hill, 9/10 times it hits something on the way up and drops to the hill or turns over the smaller tree to the left and just shortens the approach shot.

In my opinion this isn't a fun hole. I know there are people around that have the arms to reach the circle (I've done it a few times by getting lucky and squeezing through one of the smaller gaps)... But my problem with it is that there's no true scoring spread. There's not enough chance for big arms to get to the basket on their teeshots, so they have to settle for 3.

My question is: what would be a better solution to this... taking out some branches and trees to the right and making the inner turnover route more viable and fair or relocating the basket to the left a bit to make the outside turnover lead to more birdie chances?

What are you general thoughts on holes like these?

 

[Dan Ensor]

John,

I'm curious, why is the drive not the second most important shot in disc golf (after the putt) like it is in ball golf?



Thanks for this thread; I love it!

 

[grodney]

Hi John,

In a Facebook post regarding your new project at the Frost Valley YMCA in the Catskills, you say "it will accommodate every player, from the most experienced pro to the youngest camper who has never heard of disc golf".

Question: What's the point of spending design time, land, and construction resources for holes that will accommodate "the most experienced pro"?

Is there a large concentration of highly experienced pros in the area? Or are they looking to hold a major tournament there? Or is that just what the customer asked for, so that's what they get?

Another way of asking would be: When setting out to design a course, how do you know/determine what the "top end" is (or should be) that you are designing for? And for that matter, how do you know/determine the "low end" as well?

Thanks!

 

[Cgkdisc]

Note that "the most experienced pro" isn't necessarily good but perhaps just old...

 

[kenjiac]

Hi John,

In a Facebook post regarding your new project at the Frost Valley YMCA in the Catskills, you say "it will accommodate every player, from the most experienced pro to the youngest camper who has never heard of disc golf".

Question: What's the point of spending design time, land, and construction resources for holes that will accommodate "the most experienced pro"?

Is there a large concentration of highly experienced pros in the area? Or are they looking to hold a major tournament there? Or is that just what the customer asked for, so that's what they get?

Another way of asking would be: When setting out to design a course, how do you know/determine what the "top end" is (or should be) that you are designing for? And for that matter, how do you know/determine the "low end" as well?

Thanks!

I'm president of DisCap a disc golf 501(3)(c) Not For Profit in the capital region an hour and a half north of this new project. I am rated 904 while not pro we do have pros locally and we are all excited to be getting a John Houck design closeish to our area.

 

[johnrhouck]

Hi John,

Another way of asking would be: When setting out to design a course, how do you know/determine what the "top end" is (or should be) that you are designing for? And for that matter, how do you know/determine the "low end" as well?

Thanks!

Rodney, that's an important discussion with the client. In the case of the Frost Valley YMCA (http://www.frostvalley.org/), the new course you referred to in your post, they absolutely want to host big events, and they want to be a destination for players from all over the country. The course is going to be amazing, and once it's done we will be giving it our highest recommendation for anyone looking to travel to play disc golf. Incredible property, great people, and lodging on site.

I'm not sure what you're thinking of in terms of extra costs. As always, we'll have two sets of tees, but the additional clearing is not substantial, and I've designed this course so that converting it from Blue to Gold is just a matter of extra sleeves.

Need to run, but hope to be back here in the next couple days to answer other pending questions.

 

[johnrhouck]

I'm president of DisCap a disc golf 501(3)(c) Not For Profit in the capital region an hour and a half north of this new project. I am rated 904 while not pro we do have pros locally and we are all excited to be getting a John Houck design closeish to our area.

That's great to hear. Also, Warwick and all its players, including Steve Brinster, are not far away.

 

[johnrhouck]

Note that "the most experienced pro" isn't necessarily good but perhaps just old...

Indeed. Chuck knows how to read between the lines...

 

[grodney]

I'm not sure what you're thinking of in terms of extra costs. As always, we'll have two sets of tees, but the additional clearing is not substantial, and I've designed this course so that converting it from Blue to Gold is just a matter of extra sleeves.

Oh, okay -- I was just thinking you would need more sets of tees to accommodate that wide a range of skills -- even from beginner up to "blue". Apparently that's not the case.

And if your "top top pro" accommodation is a configuration (extra sleeves) and not permanent, that reduces cost (other than the sleeves and the minimal clearing you mention).

Sounds delicious. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[sloppydisc]

When is the Frost Valley Course expected to be open for play? I have a couple NY trips planned this year, and would love to make a pit stop on the way north.

 

[hook 'em]

What's the timetable for the Live Oak makeover? I've looked around, sent email, and posted on facebook all with no luck.

 

[johnrhouck]

John,

I'm curious, why is the drive not the second most important shot in disc golf (after the putt) like it is in ball golf?


Thanks for this thread; I love it!

Dan, I'm really glad to hear that you enjoy this thread.

I'm not sure how to answer your question -- did someone say that the drive is the most important shot in disc golf? I've pretty much always been in the "Drive for show, putt for dough" camp. Though sometimes I think that on well-constructed par fours, the approach shot can actually be more important than the drive. Where's your question coming from?

 

[johnrhouck]

When is the Frost Valley Course expected to be open for play? I have a couple NY trips planned this year, and would love to make a pit stop on the way north.

Hard to say at this point, Senor Sloppy. I'm pretty confident that at least 3-4 holes will be ready when camp starts in late June, but beyond that all I can say is that when it's done, it will absolutely be worth going out of your way for.

 

[johnrhouck]

What's the timetable for the Live Oak makeover? I've looked around, sent email, and posted on facebook all with no luck.

We're still waiting for approval from 3 governmental agencies. We hope to have the first in hand next week, at which point we can resume the design work. We'll be doing everything we can to have at least one course open for the Live Oak Summer Open. Fingers crossed.

 

[Stan McDaniel]

Dan, I'm really glad to hear that you enjoy this thread.

I've pretty much always been in the "Drive for show, putt for dough" camp. Though sometimes I think that on well-constructed par fours, the approach shot can actually be more important than the drive.

As a ball golfer, as well as a discer, I do not believe in the "drive for show" addage. If you don't put your drive in the fairway there is little chance that you will be able to putt for dough. You might get away with one or two somewhat errant drives in a round, but it is more than likely that you will end up paying dearly.