Do you expect us to believe that you have trouble hitting the fairway? I heard you haven't seen the rough in at least a decade.
-
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)
Ask John Houck about Course Design & Development
- Thread starter HouckDesign
- Start date
Do you expect us to believe that you have trouble hitting the fairway? I heard you haven't seen the rough in at least a decade.
I have become quite the scrambler, disc golf scrambler. I try to ball golf scramble but I only score decently if I keep 'em in the fairway. That happens once or twice every three years or so. Still, the thrill of making that improbably shot is intoxicating.
Thanks for the thoughtful question, BZ.
I'm not looking to criticize anyone's design work, so let me just answer with principles I've advocated in the past.
It looks like a pretty shot with fun elevation, so that's a good start.
From your description there are two ways to play the hole, and they both have room for improvement. You say that anyone with a decent arm can play for a three and do so routinely. That's not really challenging or fun, and of course it doesn't create a scoring spread. So inappropriate distance would be problem #1.
If someone has a big arm and wants to go for two, you never want to have gaps that are so small that it requires luck (rather than skill) to succeed. Too much luck would be problem #2. You also want to avoid situations where the big gun misses the gap and still gets an easy three. No penalty for missing the shot would be the third problem. These are all very common problems, and we see them on courses all over the country, so there's nothing unusual about your situation.
The difficulty is in finding a way to solve all three problems. If you open a bigger gap for the big shot and make it a matter of skill instead of luck, you've solved problem #2, but that doesn't help #1, and it actually makes #3 worse.
If you try to solve problem #1 by making the drive a little longer, you also make the big shot longer and therefore less make-able.
The truth is that it is very difficult to construct a hole that works as a legitimate deuce opportunity and as a reasonable two-shot hole. In fact, I think I've only done it once or twice. Odds are good that there isn't a good solution that will achieve everything you're hoping for.
The only other thing I would point out is something that I've said many times, which is that there can be great value in having trees near the tee. I like to find tees that help create options. A simple model would be a tee that give you a)an easier and/or shorter drive that leaves you with a tricky upshot and b) a longer/harder drive that gives you an easier upshot. If you could find a tee that provides those two options, the big shot wouldn't get you a deuce, but it would give you a better shot at a three.
There's no way I can give you a good answer without actually being there on the property. I also have no understanding all the limitations the designer had. Frequently the parks department or property owner imposes rules or requests that only the designer knows. So it's not fair or right to be an armchair designer. I just hope that these principles will be helpful to anyone who's working on a new or revised design.
Thanks,
John
discmeettree
Par Member
Hello John,
I played your course called Red Ridge in Southwest Las Vegas and I have to say, I had a lot of fun. It felt like a true dedicated course and I appreciated the little paths through the roughs to the next teepads. I also like how the first couple of holes are sort of a warmup and then as you get deeper into the 9 the holes get more interesting and you get sort of enveloped in the course. It was really fun.
So anyway, my question is what was your inspiration for Red Ridge Park? Is Red Ridge sort of a model you follow other places or is it unique?
Thanks for the time you are taking to answer these questions by the way. : )
I played your course called Red Ridge in Southwest Las Vegas and I have to say, I had a lot of fun. It felt like a true dedicated course and I appreciated the little paths through the roughs to the next teepads. I also like how the first couple of holes are sort of a warmup and then as you get deeper into the 9 the holes get more interesting and you get sort of enveloped in the course. It was really fun.
So anyway, my question is what was your inspiration for Red Ridge Park? Is Red Ridge sort of a model you follow other places or is it unique?
Thanks for the time you are taking to answer these questions by the way. : )
If you look at the statistics, in ball golf, the "key" shot (at least for the PGA Pros) happens to be the shot that is struck to approach the green. Since the typical PGA course has 18 holes with which 14-18 of them are 'approached' with an full / semi-full hit iron (opposed to a chip), it's the case of "who hits them closer". Ex: When Nick Price became #1 in the world (1993 I think), his avg distance to the pin was a full foot closer than the Pro in 2nd (for that stat). That is a huge margin!
Bringing this around to disc golf, since the majority of our holes are par-3s, our "key shot" happens also to be the drive...as the 'drive' and 'approach' are all rolled into one. Want to score low? "Approach" the pin accurately.
Karl
Bringing this around to disc golf, since the majority of our holes are par-3s, our "key shot" happens also to be the drive...as the 'drive' and 'approach' are all rolled into one. Want to score low? "Approach" the pin accurately.
Karl
Discmeet, I'm glad you're enjoying that course. But I can't take credit for something I didn't do. Red Ridge uses HouckDesign tee signs, but I did not design the course.
Coincidentally, my upcoming article in the PDGA magazine is about whether you can tell who designed a course by looking at certain stylistic elements. From the pictures, Red Ridge looks like a unique construction, and I have no clue who designed it.
You're very welcome.
discmeettree
Par Member
Mr Houck is a marketing genius.
texhop58
Eagle Member
I recently helped my hometown in north Texas with course design. It was my first attempt. I had several people ask me if it was a houck design. How do you work on a design for an area and how much time do you put in on design phase of a course. For instance on mine, i started by using a sketch book for general hole ideas. This helped me make sure i would work in enough different shots. I knew the general area and took to google maps and drew up 6 possible courses, with several of the sketch book ideas worked in to the map. Then went out and walked the course area to find tree batches or certain "areas" that would make for epic shots or would fit my sketch book ideas. I then Re worked 3 of my favorite layouts with the new areas added in. Finally took a buddy out and had him throw the possible holes to add or decrease distance or change tee off lines for trees. I spent probably close to 30-40 hours on field work. Just curious to see your general approach.
The sign actually said, "Course Designed by John Houck". DOH!
If that's true, then that's a problem. The signs should all say "Tee Signs by HouckDesign." If there's anywhere on those signs -- or any other signs -- that say "Course Designed by" then please send me a picture when you go back, and we'll talk to the parks department. Thanks.
Rodney, you bring up several good points and questions.
In the particular case of Frost Valley, they do want to host major tournaments, so that's how we determined the "top level" there. And when I say that we're accommodating all levels, here's what I mean.
First, the course will have red and blue tees. I suppose you could say that we're not accommodating white level players, but I think they'll be happy with their choice of tees. Similarly, anyone who is "sub-red" should be able to handle the red tees, which are generally about 200' for par threes and 400' for par fours. There will be extra pin placements to get certain holes up to gold level.
Frost Valley has additional users to take care of, so we are setting up a 3-hole course with three sets of tees. Kids with disabilities will be able to play three holes that are flat and each about 100' long. If they want more, they can then play the same loop with 150' tees, and then with 200' tees. If they've graduated from there, they should be ready for the red tees on the hillier course. In many cases, campers and staff won't have time for 18 holes or even 9 holes, so we'll be making extra tees (probably not concrete) to create a few 4-6 hole loops that are easier and more convenient.
So, for all those reasons, I felt comfortable saying we had taken care of "all" skill levels.
Hopper, it sounds like you put a lot of thought and care into your design. My understanding is that a lot of designers work the way you describe. I actually do it differently.
I start by walking the property very thoroughly, looking for the best "areas" first. Once I feel like I know it completely, I look for the best holes on the property, and then I see how I can route them together. This approach is much more time-consuming and can get pretty frustrating. For one thing, it requires that you be willing to give up some of your favorite holes in order to make the big picture work. I believe that this "inside out" approach gives me the best chance of finding the best course that property can accommodate. And even once I've found a routing I like, I always keep asking, "Is there a way I can make it better?"
These days, it's not unusual for me to spend 200+ hours in the field, especially if it's mostly wooded. One of the biggest lessons I've learned over the years is not to force my concepts onto the property. I need to "listen" to the property and let it tell me where it wants to go. OK, maybe we still wrestle a little some times, but I'm a much better listener than I used to be. The old advice to players, "Take what the course will give you" is also advice that's helpful to designers.
Karl, that's a fascinating stat about Nick Price. Have you seen it for other years? It would be interesting to know how well it holds up. One foot is, indeed, a huge margin.
Maybe "drive for show," at least in ball golf, is really most appropriate for top players, since they rarely miss the fairway.
grodney
* Ace Member *
Wow, sounds like you are pretty much getting to create the dream in that regard. That's great.
John,
Most times (individual years) the number is not that great - he was "extra on" that year (and the results showed). But there is a very strong correlation between length of first putt (on a GIR) and the player's score - as 5.5' putts only fall ~50% of the time and steadily get 'worse' the further you are from the hole.
The "drive for show, putt for dough" statement was first uttered 50+ years ago and while the "drive for show" is STILL prevalent because laymen can't hit drives like Garrigus and Watson (so they (the drives) are still 'showy'), the "putt for dough" can be analogized as any blind pig can find an acorn in the woods once in a while (making a long putt) and IS done by weekend warriors.
Besides, people have a tendency to think about / remember "the ends" (of any m.o.), and thus equating to such 'ends' allows such wordings to be remembered...it's a catchy phrase. A lot more catchy than "drive for show, and hit accurate irons so you can make more putts"!?!
Karl
discmeettree
Par Member
It's on the main sign on the bathroom wall next to the baseball diamonds. I'm not on that side of town but next time I get over there I'll send you a picture for sure. :thmbup:
Thanks.
I'm sorry. Do we know who coined the phrase?
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Bobby Locke, South African golfer who was a good putter. Seeing Playing Attributes section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Locke
