Ask John Houck about Course Design & Development

[KRATC]

I am very excited about the Carrollton course. That area really needs a good course. With Flyboy pulled, the closest course is Deerlick (or maybe White Oak). By the looks of it, this will be a fantastic course. If it is similar to W.R. Jackson, I think it will be a perfect addition to the west Atlanta scene.

 

[rhatton1]

Do you have any regrets about any of your holes designed in the past - any you look back on now and think, I wish I did that differently.

I'm designing a Gold standard championship course with a few holes playing around some lakes. There are a couple of par 5's that play alongside and cross water on 2nd or 3rd throws (or 4th 5th or 6th depending on how well the driver went )

I think the carry over water and the decision making involved is reasonable on these holes for anyone around 850 upwards (probably playing the par 5's for a sensible 6 or 7 as opposed to the top open players having a massively risky chance for 3 and a reasonable risk for 4) my problem is on the British tour we tend to run all divisions at tournaments and so we will have low 800 raters and below also playing. For them I am afraid it really does come into the stupid hole design category/slog. Our bottom division (up to 880) would incorporate half the division that this would be reasonable but tough design for and half where it is too much and the alternative to attempting the crossing is quite a few extra shots round the edge of the lake. I could realistically see the bottom players on tour taking 10's + on these holes.

Have you got any ideas for ways around this - as it is not the first drive you can't have drop zones. I would prefer all players to play from the same tee and to the same basket to preserve ratings, and I know the top players n the division will want the challenge.

I don't want to alienate 20% of the touring membership here but we don't have enough gold standard courses and I think our top players suffer as a result, which is why I am designing with this in mind.

The same course has a blue and red layout which are fine for beginners on the red and intermediate players on the blue but it is the tournament play I am slightly concerned about.

 

[1978]

Ah -- forgive me. I was thinking Trophy Club, not Trophy Lake.

Thanks for explaining the signs. Obviously that kind of information can be very helpful.

It did occur to me that, on holes where you encounter water on your second shot, you never really know what the distance to carry is, just as on most multi-shot holes you have to figure out on your own which disc to use and how hard to throw it. So there is an element of the sport where estimating distance without a laser, caddy book, or tee sign is part of the game. Tough call. Thanks again.

Can't this be solved by incorporating permanent distance markers into the course? Painted rocks, tree signs. How often do you do this, if you support it and do you have a standard like they do on ball golf courses? At Nevin I started utilizing 4" strips of a non rusting metal and 2.5" vinyl numbers to mark stumps, roots, and trees with distance from pin. It gets difficult to do 100-150-200-250 if there isnt an object in that range... Also, I bought a fixed amount of the numbers 0-9, so I did 158' or 263' to use slow down use of common numbers. What are your thoughts on distance markers once off the tee?

1000 numbers from U-line is pretty cheap and you can use the inside of a soda can for the metal plate. cut a 4" x 3" piece and round the corners. Tack to tree or stump with shingle nails. For stumps or non-signature rocks I used number stencils and non-annoying colors like black, brown, and dark reds.

I personally dont want anything that could impede a disc like poles, but like to know how far I am on a second or third shot.

 

[bacavett]

I'm so glad that you find those articles helpful -- that's why we do them. I appreciate Randy Signor and Brian Graham and the rest of the PDGA for wanting to make that kind of information available to their readers. And I appreciate Rick Rothstein for that same thing going back into the '90's.

It can be tricky to make holes in the open that are fun and challenging. Two things I've noticed that stick out to me:

1. Some courses have a wide open Hole #1 and then a bunch of holes in the woods. I would think very hard about walking an extra 100 yards and starting the course closer to the trees.

2. When you have a few scattered trees, you get more mileage out of them when you use them by tee than if you use them by the basket. If you use them on the tee, you can actually shape the shot. When you use them by the basket, unless they're good and wide, you just create a flukey situation where one good shot hits the tree and an almost identical good shot misses the tree.

The good news, as I mentioned in my last article, is that I'm finding property owners much more willing to plant trees than they've been in the past. Just in the last year, Little Elm planted over 40, I think; Trey Texas did more than 50 over two courses; and Tall Firs (which opens in a week from today) did about 130.

Of course, the trees need to be big enough to make a difference, so I insist on at least 2 1/2" caliper and 8' of height. Bigger is better, but those can make a difference off the tee, as long as a player is throwing backhand or sidearm and not something upside down. By the basket, I'll want to use them in groups to get good width, and focus in areas where the shot will already be low. Don't forget to plan for future growth of those trees.

I've also found property owners more willing to move dirt, and that can help in open areas. Simple mounds can create places being on or behind the mound could result tricky footing and/or a tricky shot and/or a blind shot. I haven't used that technique yet -- fortunately, I haven't needed to.

It's actually coincidental that you ask about this topic, as my NEXT article is going to be solutions for open areas. Tall Firs used to be a golf course, and a lot of it is wide open. It's also only about 23 acres, including the pond (and it's surrounded by homes, which makes it much smaller), so putting in a championship-style course was a challenge.

The classic answer for creating fun and challenging holes in a wide open area is artificial OB, and the classic example is the USDGC. I've been watching some of the Smashboxx.tv and DGPTV coverage from Blue Lake, and obviously there's a ton of it there, too. But that's not something you'd want for casual play. I try to reserve artificial OB as a last resort. I did use it at Tall Firs, but we made the in-bounds areas as wide as we possibly could, and you'll only be OB if you made a really bad shot and are in someone else's fairway.

The big thing at Tall Firs was finding a way to give players an incentive to stay in their own fairway while not giving them a penalty stroke for a small mistake. So what we did on several holes was to create a zone in between fairways that would be undesirable but not too penal. I'll explain it in the next article, and once I've written it, I'll explain it here, too. For now, I hope that helps a little.

That's a great point about using the trees closer to the tee. I hadn't thought of that. The course I have been co-designing currently (and what prompted my initial post as it's quite open) I initially was looking at trying to put the trees near the green as guardians to make approaching the basket more challenging. This however made holes that were wide open drives and then approach shots that as you said would be "flukey". So i'll definitely be revisiting the park with a fresh eye and looking at how I could mix up my current design putting the tees near the trees.

The park we're working at is perfectly setup for pay-to-play so it is definitely in the plan to have much of the revenue generated go back into the course adding trees (specifically Leyland Cypress and Hybrid Poplar) and possibly moving soil around as well to balance out the openness of many of the holes to make them more challenging.

That's great to hear! I'll definitely be looking forward to checking that article out. I did look at the Tall Firs course you mentioned (which looks great by the way) and it's very reminiscent of what we're dealing with; our park was also an old golf course.

I'm glad you mentioned that, as I was watching the live coverage of Worlds as well and as they played Blue Lake I was getting a lot of ideas on how to handle all of the openness of our park. I was thinking of using a lot of artificial OB (widening the fairways of course to compensate; nothing more frustrating than spending 5 minutes looking for you disc in a brush patch) but wasn't sure how well that would work and so was pleasantly surprised to see how they did it at Blue Lake. I think that's the route we'll end up having to go, at least until we can start putting in trees and moving dirt.

Thanks again you've been quite helpful and i'll be sure to look for your new article.

 

[dreadlock86]

hey John, i'm sure i'm not the only one eager to hear more about your new course in Abilene. can we get some info/teasers/insights? anything new you're getting to try on this property?

 

[Mando]

John
A couple of questions;
1) What is the minimum gap that you would design in the first 50-75 feet of a
wooded hole, on holes 275 feet or longer ? Do you feel that early trouble is an over-used design feature or a good way to create scoring spread ?
2) I read somewhere that professional designers feel it it easier to design quality par 4's, than it is to design quality par 3's. Agree or disagree ?

 

[johnrhouck]

Do you have any regrets about any of your holes designed in the past - any you look back on now and think, I wish I did that differently.

I'm designing a Gold standard championship course with a few holes playing around some lakes. There are a couple of par 5's that play alongside and cross water on 2nd or 3rd throws (or 4th 5th or 6th depending on how well the driver went )

I think the carry over water and the decision making involved is reasonable on these holes for anyone around 850 upwards (probably playing the par 5's for a sensible 6 or 7 as opposed to the top open players having a massively risky chance for 3 and a reasonable risk for 4) my problem is on the British tour we tend to run all divisions at tournaments and so we will have low 800 raters and below also playing. For them I am afraid it really does come into the stupid hole design category/slog. Our bottom division (up to 880) would incorporate half the division that this would be reasonable but tough design for and half where it is too much and the alternative to attempting the crossing is quite a few extra shots round the edge of the lake. I could realistically see the bottom players on tour taking 10's + on these holes.

Have you got any ideas for ways around this - as it is not the first drive you can't have drop zones. I would prefer all players to play from the same tee and to the same basket to preserve ratings, and I know the top players n the division will want the challenge.

I don't want to alienate 20% of the touring membership here but we don't have enough gold standard courses and I think our top players suffer as a result, which is why I am designing with this in mind.

The same course has a blue and red layout which are fine for beginners on the red and intermediate players on the blue but it is the tournament play I am slightly concerned about.

Rhatton, thanks for your patience.

On your Gold level water holes, I certainly understand wanting to give the top players the ultimate challenge. But when you say "really does come into the stupid hole design category/slog" and that some players will be carding double digits, I have to wonder -- as you clearly are -- if it's worth it.

It seems like you have a good solution with your red and blue tees. I believe the ratings can handle different divisions using different tees -- are you worried that you won't have enough "propagators" using the short tees, and that those lower divisions won't get their ratings updated?

I'd be interested to see the design of some of these holes. Maybe you can post drawings or links for us.

To answer your first question, I always hope to improve as a designer, so the good news/bad news is that I sometimes look at holes I did ten years ago and think, "I could do that better today." But I haven't been able to think of any instances where I have regret; I always did the best I could and wanted every course I did to use state-of-the-art principles for that time. (I'm sure some players can name instances where they think I should have had some regret.)

Thanks.

 

[Cgkdisc]

One way to deal with tough water crossings when players are required to tee from the gold tee in a tournament is to give players the choice to take a 2-shot penalty and start play from the red tee. This is how we do it at the IDGC on the Steady Ed course. On the few water crossing holes, players who must tee from the (long) blue tee are allowed to start play making their third shot from the red tee to avoid the possibility of losing a disc while trying to throw over water.

 

[Rabidfrog]

New course

Hey,
I am a pastor of a church in Decatur,il and we are thinking about installing a disc golf course here on our property. We have mostly flat farmland but the course I have laid out uses what little trees are available. We have around 40 acres so I have laid out a 18 hole course. I will try to post a PDF on the layout later this week.
1) What are the major things to consider while forming a layout?
2) What are the biggest traps to avoid?
3) what options are there for "field" holes that make them interesting (if this is even possible?)

 

[johnrhouck]

hey John, i'm sure i'm not the only one eager to hear more about your new course in Abilene. can we get some info/teasers/insights? anything new you're getting to try on this property?

I have to say, Steve, that I'm pretty excited about the course at Lake Abilene. I just spent the better part of two weeks working on it, and I think it's going to be absolutely world class. It has some great trees and good terrain, and we have every reason to believe there will be water (though right now Lake Abilene is bone dry).

There are going to be a lot of really nice holes out there, and I feel like I was able to create new variations using the principles I believe in the most. I don't think you'll see anything "game-changing" new; that's very hard to do. I guess it's kind of like an album of 18 new songs, and I think all of them are going to be good ones. Lots of character all throughout the course.

There's also a nice lake house for rent right there on the property. It's got three bedrooms, I believe, and a full kitchen, so it'll be a popular spot for disc golf groups. And one of the best steak houses in Texas is just 4 miles up the road.

 

[johnrhouck]

John
A couple of questions;
1) What is the minimum gap that you would design in the first 50-75 feet of a
wooded hole, on holes 275 feet or longer ? Do you feel that early trouble is an over-used design feature or a good way to create scoring spread ?
2) I read somewhere that professional designers feel it it easier to design quality par 4's, than it is to design quality par 3's. Agree or disagree ?

I've been thinking a lot about your first question, Mando. There are some important principles involved.

First, the size of the gap depends on who is playing it (skill level), how far they need to go after they get through the gap, and whether they'll be using a midrange, putter, or driver. In some cases, it'll also depend on if there are any other options, and what the risks and rewards are for trying the gap.

I use a Ten Times rule as a place to start. I think that 5' wide at 50' (or 6' wide at 60', or 7' wide at 70'...) is a fair challenge for experienced players, and fairly skilled players should be able to hit it most of the time (which is what you want), even if the hole or landing area is 250'-300' from the tee. I don't like to go any tighter than that on a hole where you want most players to make the gap. You can go a little tighter sometimes in the right situation, but I personally don't like to do that more than once or twice in 18 holes.

As far as using a tight gap to create scoring spread, that's a really important question. I would say this to anyone designing or re-designing this kind of hole: if you make a better hole, it will automatically have a better scoring spread. Don't ever do anything just to make a better spread; do things that will make a better hole.

And always remember that a good hole will have a good scoring spread. But a good scoring spread doesn't mean you have a good hole.

On your second question, I do agree that it's harder to make a really good par three than it is to make a really good par four. I think that's because you can combine two good par threes to make a really good par four, where the whole exceeds the sum of the parts.

Thanks for those questions, and thanks for your patience.

 

[rhatton1]

Thanks for your answers John and Chuck. As for the hole designs etc, I have joined up with the DGCD group so I will be hitting you all up with some questions on there once I can find the time and will share the contentious proposed hole designs(new baby, hectic work schedule etc etc slowing me down at the moment)

The blue and red courses are now fully installed for all year round play and getting a good response. The Gold course is an extension which can only be played for 8 months of the year and may only be set up for top level tournaments as the blue can handle more run of the mill events.

I think my final decision making will be to make a course for the top guys and possibly a different basket position instead of different tee position for the lower rated divisions as the crossing as it stands will be third or 4th shots for lower rated players the different tee isn't going to work in this instance. There should be enough propogators in the divisions to make this work as I am expecting to get near full fields for the top level tournaments. It's a shame not to play the same course for all but we need more top level courses over here.

First British Tour event at the course is in March so we've got a bit of time to work with and play test it all out.

 

[Jukeshoe]

And always remember that a good hole will have a good scoring spread. But a good scoring spread doesn't mean you have a good hole.

Great advice!

 

[dreadlock86]

thanks for the update, John. i can't wait to see it!

 

[Mando]

I've been thinking a lot about your first question, Mando. There are some important principles involved.

First, the size of the gap depends on who is playing it (skill level), how far they need to go after they get through the gap, and whether they'll be using a midrange, putter, or driver. In some cases, it'll also depend on if there are any other options, and what the risks and rewards are for trying the gap.

I use a Ten Times rule as a place to start. I think that 5' wide at 50' (or 6' wide at 60', or 7' wide at 70'...) is a fair challenge for experienced players, and fairly skilled players should be able to hit it most of the time (which is what you want), even if the hole or landing area is 250'-300' from the tee. I don't like to go any tighter than that on a hole where you want most players to make the gap. You can go a little tighter sometimes in the right situation, but I personally don't like to do that more than once or twice in 18 holes.

As far as using a tight gap to create scoring spread, that's a really important question. I would say this to anyone designing or re-designing this kind of hole: if you make a better hole, it will automatically have a better scoring spread. Don't ever do anything just to make a better spread; do things that will make a better hole.

And always remember that a good hole will have a good scoring spread. But a good scoring spread doesn't mean you have a good hole.

On your second question, I do agree that it's harder to make a really good par three than it is to make a really good par four. I think that's because you can combine two good par threes to make a really good par four, where the whole exceeds the sum of the parts.

Thanks for those questions, and thanks for your patience.

John
Thanks so much for the thoughtful answers.
Speaking of the sum of it's parts; if a course is a totally-wooded 25 hole gauntlet, would you tend to loosen the gaps knowing you have to hit so many of them during the round ? When the course was 18 holes, it was about right, but now it's a might unfriendly.

Being a shade-tree course designer with a tract loaded with lots of natural features, the par 3's were easy. Each hole seemed to have an obvious ideal tee area and a ready-made basket location. The par 4's were much tougher for me to visualize. Every once in awhile we used to play safari, and the combined holes were never as good as the par 3's.

 

[johnrhouck]

I am very excited about the Carrollton course. That area really needs a good course. With Flyboy pulled, the closest course is Deerlick (or maybe White Oak). By the looks of it, this will be a fantastic course. If it is similar to W.R. Jackson, I think it will be a perfect addition to the west Atlanta scene.

I just spent another 8 days in Carrollton, and we're making great progress. A lot of the property had been thoroughly covered in privet and/or kudzu, so much so that it was impossible to walk through some areas and hard to imagine what was really out there. Now that all that's been cleared, it looks even better than I had hoped. I have really high hopes for this course.

We've put some new pictures from this visit up on our FB page: https://www.facebook.com/HouckDesign

This property has a great mix of open and wooded; it's got good elevation; and half the holes have creek or pond involved. We're hoping that the next round of clearing and tree-planting will happen over the next 2-3 months and that there will be tees and baskets by spring.

 

[johnrhouck]

Thanks for your answers John and Chuck. As for the hole designs etc, I have joined up with the DGCD group so I will be hitting you all up with some questions on there once I can find the time and will share the contentious proposed hole designs(new baby, hectic work schedule etc etc slowing me down at the moment)

Welcome to the DGCD, and we'll look forward to your questions when you get the time.

It's a shame not to play the same course for all but we need more top level courses over here.

I understand the urge to have everyone play the same layout, but you should take comfort in knowing that players are getting a course that matches their skill level better and will probably be a lot more fun for them to play. It sounds like you're on the right track. Hope all your babies -- in the family and in the parks -- stay healthy and happy.

 

[Steve West]

...A lot of the property had been thoroughly covered in privet and/or kudzu, so much so that it was impossible to walk through some areas and hard to imagine what was really out there...

Thanks for sharing that. Knowing that even the best designer prefers not to finalize the design before some clearing, I can now be more assertive in asking clients to do at least initial clearing.

 

[Flip Hyzerman]

John - how excited are you to be designing the new course in Columbia, MO (Strawn Road Park)? What is your strategy for building a course out of a new piece of land? Do you 'see' lines as you build the holes?

 

[johnrhouck]

John
Thanks so much for the thoughtful answers.
Speaking of the sum of it's parts; if a course is a totally-wooded 25 hole gauntlet, would you tend to loosen the gaps knowing you have to hit so many of them during the round ? When the course was 18 holes, it was about right, but now it's a might unfriendly.

Mando, you are really asking some great questions. To me, this one boils down how much you value variety. It might be that the new 7 holes might all be great as individual holes, and they might be great as a group of 7. But if, when added to the existing 18, they just seem like more of the same, you might want to make some changes.

Every hole should be able to stand on its own as much as possible, but every hole has a role to play in the big picture. If you took the 11 biggest, strongest, best-blocking players in the NFL and put them on the field together, you wouldn't have much of an air attack. And if you put the 11 best quarterbacks out there together, you wouldn't have much of anything.

On the other hand, some courses still succeed by having a "theme" and not having as much variety. It's just a call you have to make. Since you're using the word "gauntlet," I'm guessing players might appreciate getting a little breathing room every now and then. A bad day in the woods -- when you're hitting wood every other shot (or worse) -- can almost make you wish you were back in the office. On those days, playing another 7 tight holes might feel more like punishment than fun.

Being a shade-tree course designer with a tract loaded with lots of natural features, the par 3's were easy. Each hole seemed to have an obvious ideal tee area and a ready-made basket location. The par 4's were much tougher for me to visualize. Every once in awhile we used to play safari, and the combined holes were never as good as the par 3's.

You just made three really important points. If you have a lot of good natural features, then designing memorable par threes can indeed be easier than designing exceptional par fours. It's when you don't have the obvious nice tees and pin locations that the scales tip in the other direction, I think.

Second, when you you're working with a property that's wooded, or even just has a lot of trees, it can be really tough to visualize a 250'-300' hole. And obviously it's a lot more difficult to visualize a hole that's twice as long. So when we say that it's "harder" to make that extra-tasty par three, maybe what we're really saying it's that it's harder to get the land to cooperate. Creating the as-tasty par four will be harder in terms of the amount of time and effort required.

Finally, I hope we can all agree that every good par four should break down into two (or more) decent, fair, fun par threes. But putting two existing par threes together doesn't necessarily make a good par four. There are several reasons that's true, but here's the most obvious. Let's say you want to create hole #78, which plays from the #7 tee to the #8 basket. Hole #8 is probably good because the tee is exactly where it is. When it becomes the second half of a combo hole, odds are that very few shots are going to land right on that tee. (In fact, the #8 tee will often be very hard to hit from the #7 tee, just for safety reasons.) Obviously there are times when combo holes like that work great, but you should consider yourself fortunate when that happens.

Thanks for making me think through these issues. Your questions really helped me clarify my thinking, and I hope my answers are helpful to some of you, too.