I'd say that UL to LR would be more challenging for righties as they would need to keep a disc turned over longer to clear the water without hyzering back in.
-
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
I'd say that UL to LR would be more challenging for righties as they would need to keep a disc turned over longer to clear the water without hyzering back in.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
If it's straight ahead, then it's probably a coin flip but I also agree with Denny's comment above. You mentioned a tree limb so your choice may be determined more by where the trunk is positioned and how you think the landing areas set up whether you go LL>UR or UL>LR. Regardless, I think having the angle at all is the key thing here to create a more strategic choice than just straight across.
MTL,
Here's what it looks like to me: basically, you want to create a risky 2-shot hole and a somewhat safer 3-shot hole that live on top of each other. In my experience, this design concept is one of the hardest you can ever tackle. There are just so many things that have to be right, and every time you fix one problem, you create another. In fact, my last article in the PDGA magazine was on this very topic.
In that article, I make the case that the type of two-shot hole you want will generally have a dogleg and so will be V-shaped. Three-shot holes will have two doglegs and will be U-shaped or Z-shaped. The fairway you're working with is dead straight, so you're trying to put an "I" on top of an "I." That makes a hard job even harder.
Chuck and Denny make good points about the value of diagonal OB. But you've got bigger problems. Bottom line:
1. You can make a good two-shot hole for 1000+ rated players in the 750-850' range. The low ceiling and stream you propose make the approach risky enough that someone's got to want it bad to try it, but it's not so hard that it's a matter of desperation. How long the hole should be depends on how hard that approach really is. Based on everything you've told us, I'd guess that 850' is too long to yield many eagles, and you very much want it to produce a decent percentage of eagles. Otherwise, no thinking golfer will be tempted.
2. Your biggest problem is the resulting three-shot hole. Even with the tee side of the stream at 150' short of an 800' pin, you'll have top players looking to go about 600' on their first two shots. That leaves them a safe 50' short of the "water," and it gives them 200' to the pin. It's dead straight and dead flat. And with a width of over 100', it might as well be wide open. Your top players can throw a putter twice and be right where they want to be, ten times out of ten. The three-shot hole is not fun or challenging. And not even installing the stream on a diagonal can save you.
So if someone needs to make up a stroke, he can go for it. If he's happy where he is, he plays what's probably the most boring hole in your entire tournament, and I know that's not what you're looking for.
The best case would be that the leader sees the second-place guy going for it and decides to risk going for it, too. With that in mind, I guess I would want anyone hitting that branch to go into the water. I just don't think that's a likely scenario, and you'll still have a bunch of other players taking the safe, no-fun option.
So I hate to say it, but unless I'm missing something, I think you need to go back to the drawing board. You just don't have enough to work with there. If it helps, it looks like you probably have better places to combine two holes.
Hope that makes sense. If there's something I misunderstood, please let me know.
Thanks,
John
Here's what it looks like to me: basically, you want to create a risky 2-shot hole and a somewhat safer 3-shot hole that live on top of each other. In my experience, this design concept is one of the hardest you can ever tackle. There are just so many things that have to be right, and every time you fix one problem, you create another. In fact, my last article in the PDGA magazine was on this very topic.
In that article, I make the case that the type of two-shot hole you want will generally have a dogleg and so will be V-shaped. Three-shot holes will have two doglegs and will be U-shaped or Z-shaped. The fairway you're working with is dead straight, so you're trying to put an "I" on top of an "I." That makes a hard job even harder.
Chuck and Denny make good points about the value of diagonal OB. But you've got bigger problems. Bottom line:
1. You can make a good two-shot hole for 1000+ rated players in the 750-850' range. The low ceiling and stream you propose make the approach risky enough that someone's got to want it bad to try it, but it's not so hard that it's a matter of desperation. How long the hole should be depends on how hard that approach really is. Based on everything you've told us, I'd guess that 850' is too long to yield many eagles, and you very much want it to produce a decent percentage of eagles. Otherwise, no thinking golfer will be tempted.
2. Your biggest problem is the resulting three-shot hole. Even with the tee side of the stream at 150' short of an 800' pin, you'll have top players looking to go about 600' on their first two shots. That leaves them a safe 50' short of the "water," and it gives them 200' to the pin. It's dead straight and dead flat. And with a width of over 100', it might as well be wide open. Your top players can throw a putter twice and be right where they want to be, ten times out of ten. The three-shot hole is not fun or challenging. And not even installing the stream on a diagonal can save you.
So if someone needs to make up a stroke, he can go for it. If he's happy where he is, he plays what's probably the most boring hole in your entire tournament, and I know that's not what you're looking for.
The best case would be that the leader sees the second-place guy going for it and decides to risk going for it, too. With that in mind, I guess I would want anyone hitting that branch to go into the water. I just don't think that's a likely scenario, and you'll still have a bunch of other players taking the safe, no-fun option.
So I hate to say it, but unless I'm missing something, I think you need to go back to the drawing board. You just don't have enough to work with there. If it helps, it looks like you probably have better places to combine two holes.
Hope that makes sense. If there's something I misunderstood, please let me know.
Thanks,
John
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
Thanks for the time and input John.
This map isn't 100% accurate. There are actually 4 holes across the street in the park so multiple holes on this map are combined (the par, even if 18 ends up as a tough par 4, is a legit 63). It's just the only one I had to showcase the land.
My thought, honestly, in making it a par 5 was I'm addicted to ball golf now and can't tell you how many times I stand in a fairway of a par 5 after my teeshot with a 3 or 4 wood and an 8 iron in my hand deciding to go for it or lay up. I love the decision making that playing ball golf a lot has forced me into and I was hoping recreate that with this hole, but you are 100% correct, two lay up shows would be very very simple. I guess in comparison I'm a 15 handicap in golf so those shots would probably be very simple green lights for 5 handicap players and that's basically what I am in disc golf, a 5 handicap.
I'm now thinking that as a par 4 it might intice more people - even if the hole was the same distance as a the shorter 5 with the same OB - to go for their second shot simply b/c it's called a par 4.
Do you think it's better to make it around 650ish with the same OB stream and call it a tough par 4?
This map isn't 100% accurate. There are actually 4 holes across the street in the park so multiple holes on this map are combined (the par, even if 18 ends up as a tough par 4, is a legit 63). It's just the only one I had to showcase the land.
My thought, honestly, in making it a par 5 was I'm addicted to ball golf now and can't tell you how many times I stand in a fairway of a par 5 after my teeshot with a 3 or 4 wood and an 8 iron in my hand deciding to go for it or lay up. I love the decision making that playing ball golf a lot has forced me into and I was hoping recreate that with this hole, but you are 100% correct, two lay up shows would be very very simple. I guess in comparison I'm a 15 handicap in golf so those shots would probably be very simple green lights for 5 handicap players and that's basically what I am in disc golf, a 5 handicap.
I'm now thinking that as a par 4 it might intice more people - even if the hole was the same distance as a the shorter 5 with the same OB - to go for their second shot simply b/c it's called a par 4.
Do you think it's better to make it around 650ish with the same OB stream and call it a tough par 4?
Last edited:
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
625-700 feet depending on foliage is about as long as you want to go on a non-dogleg par 4 for gold level, so 650 sounds about right. You go much longer and you get into the tweener zone or your dreaded 3-shot par 4 range...
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
625-700 feet depending on foliage is about as long as you want to go on a non-dogleg par 4 for gold level, so 650 sounds about right. You go much longer and you get into the tweener zone or your dreaded 3-shot par 4 range...
Yeah that's what I was thinking.
what are your thoughts about the artificial ob? Go or no go as a par 4?
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I think the OB concept is still a valid option to add challenge for a par 4. But as John says, it's hard to pull off your combination heroic 2-shot versus 3-shot idea with what you have to work with.
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
I certainly think that because this isn't a shotgun start course, the concept of making the last hole challenging really makes things interesting.
hophead
Par Member
I know this hole well and imo the artificial creek would be good. The limbs that overhang make this upshot tougher than it appears plus the tree on the right can be impossible to get up and down from if you're in it deep. Par 4 in the 650ish with that ob makes the upshot very difficult for big arms looking to card a 3.
hophead
Par Member
Another thing is its not easy for big arms to just crush here and have a short upshot. The ob left combined with the huge trees lining the right side and mix in some wind make it risky to do that. Great piece of land here that's difficult for mtl to describe.
DGRZ001
Eagle Member
Do a thread search. This is not the best thread for that.
If only you could throw in a few fairway bunkers to make the drive risky...
Thanks for that question, hophead. We didn't want to announce anything until everything was completely in place, but we can say now that HouckDesign will be doing the new course at Rock Ridge Park in Pittsboro. In fact, Dee and I arrived last night, and I'll be starting the design process tomorrow.
I'm excited about my first North Carolina course. It's a beautiful wooded property with good elevation and great support from the town and parks department. The course is not fully funded yet, so we will be working on fundraising and finding sponsors. But we wanted to go ahead and get started as soon as possible.
There will be a lot of clearing involved, and we really don't know how long it will take, but I think I can say that we're all hoping the course will open in 2013 (late this year might be possible). Phase one will be the initial design and clearing, and there will probably be two subsequent rounds of refining and clearing/trimming.
North Carolina has always been a leading state in our sport, and we're honored to have the opportunity to add another piece to its rich disc golf experience. We really hope that people in the area will enjoy it, and that players who visit from around the country will appreciate it as well.
^^ this post just made me really really happy. i live like 30 minutes from pittsboro and have always wondered why there wasn't a dg course out there, the land is great for it. i'd be willing to lend a hand with anything i can possibly help with in getting this course in the ground. if possible i'd love to even walk around see how you go about designing courses.
hophead
Par Member
Thanks for the info John and I'm really excited we'll have a Houck design in NC. Pittsboro is a quaint lil town and not too far from the triangle so it will be a nice addition to the area. Looking forward to checking it out.
Nate, that's great. You've seen the park, so you know there's going to be lots of work to do. Probably the best thing to do right now is to contact Paul Horne -- he's the Park Planner for the Town of Pittsboro. (919) 542-4621 ext. 62 or [email protected]. He's keeping the (growing) list of volunteers. I'll him know about you, too.
See you soon.
