Ask John Houck about Course Design & Development

[johnrhouck]

Thanks for the feedback, I have no intention of making this a permanent hole. As I said, it's a National Park so that is not much of an option, but it's been a great way to experiment with different design ideas and then test them out on myself and my buddies.

Got it.

I know I marked it as Gold and in other cases Blue, but it's really more of a blue/gold or high blue, low gold... basically I'm trying to make the best holes for my friends and myself who rate in the 940's - 990's.

Then that's great.

I was confused with something in your message, which shot is to short, the 300 ft layup short of the OB or 300 ft shot to clear the OB.

I was saying that a 300' layup drive is a bit short if it were strictly gold, but there's no real issue.

Thanks for the feedback about the eagle landing zone. Would you suggest making it angled or just totally straight? Example top left corner of fairway clearing OB is 490 ft away from tee, bottom right is 440 ft away from tee.

Just going "by the book," you could make it so that the more OB you carry, the closer to the pin you are. So if you cut it in half, from 8:00 to 2:00 and include the eagle landing area you already have, you could get the best of both worlds.

Also, I know where you're coming from on the whole artificial OB thing in permanent courses, but I was surprised that you don't even like them for tournaments outside of the USDGC. It makes me curious, what's your opinion of some of the European courses? I think a lot of people watch videos of the courses in Europe and find them to be really interesting and exciting... but it sounds like you may have a different opinion? Please share your thoughts.

Thanks!

In thinking about it, I guess I have two concerns. I love water OB if it's available and used judiciously. Artificial OB ponds have two major psychological downsides for me. The big one is aesthetics. The other one is having to pick up your disc and remark your lie. I just prefer to avoid that as much as possible. The other consideration is that I'd rather give people a chance to work their way out of trouble, as opposed to picking up and taking a stroke. Those are all factors that add up to make the game more enjoyable. Of, course, those are standards that make course design much harder. In your case, if you're just doing it for your friends, none of it is a big deal.

I've seen a couple SDGO videos, and I remember some holes where there's OB along the edges of fairways and one hole with an island green. Neither bother me as much as making OB ponds. As for other European courses, I don't know that I've seen any of the videos you mention. I haven't been able to find much time for watching videos, but I can sneak in a few minutes here and there. Maybe you could recommend some.

 

[johnrhouck]

One other quick note. At some point in the recent discussions, someone gave the advice to punish aggressive play.

I would just like to add the clarification that it's important to punish an aggressive play that doesn't succeed.

As a rule, we want to ENCOURAGE aggressive play, or at least provide incentives for aggressive play. That's what strategy in disc golf is all about: if I go for it and hit it, I get a big reward; if I play too safe, that strategy might also backfire. The best golfers are the ones who know when to be aggressive and then execute the great shots. Great courses will reward those golfers. On the other hand, if I go for the big shot and don't execute it, a great course will make me pay.

 

[johnrhouck]

John - in conjunction with mhulkman's question about adding intrigue to an otherwise featureless piece of land, might it make sense to do something creative like partially blocking off one side of the basket to make it more directional?

In my mind it adds the requirement of accurate placement to an otherwise bland hole. And.....accuracy is a real disc golf skill, so directional baskets might have their place in the scenario mhulkman describes.

I experimented with some tournaments I ran to add shields to one side of some baskets. I basically just hung a 1"x6" board down the side of the basket. You could see them clearly from the tee on the holes they were used so you knew where the more challenging landing area was.....and if you were good, you did not land in that area.

With only a 5.5" shield, there was no place that you were completely blocked, but you did have to either straddle putt or hyzer/anhyzer putt if landing to the side of the shield.

Hey, Dave. You bring up an interesting idea. It's one that some of us first heard from Dr. Fred back in the rec.sport.disc days. I know Rodney remembers him.

I've always thought it was intriguing. The picture Mashnut sent is pretty interesting. I do agree with Bogey that natural is better, though it's not always an option, and I'm sure the board would bug a lot of people.

My big question for you is: how did your test turn out?

 

[johnrhouck]

I've heard a lot of people opine that there should't be ANY ob within 10 meters of the basket. I think for some it just introduces too much luck factor. For others, I think perhaps they object that it overly encourages layups, thus discouraging exhibition quality play. Your opinion?

Hey, Jen. Great question.

As Rodney points out, I have done holes with OB closer than 10 meters, and I think they all worked fine. The key has to do with the length of the shot approaching the pin.

Rodney gives a great example: Hole #4 from the Greenbelt course at CR2. It was just 228', a bit downhill, and not wooded but the trees in play definitely tightened it up. In my memory, the OB was probably about 10' behind the pin. Still, you absolutely wanted to go for the birdie, and you'd kick yourself if you went long. Landing within 20' without going OB was a fair test.

Now, I would not use that pin placement on a 300' hole. That's asking too much and does begin to bring luck too much into play.

You're obviously familiar with #5 on Selah Creekside. The pond level has varied a lot with the drought, but it certainly gets a lot closer than 10 meters when the water's up. But at 215', I consider it fair, and it's one of my favorite holes out there.

 

[johnrhouck]

Well, since you asked,,,,,,,,, . My first thought is that I usually would not want the O.B. to be much closer than approximately the 10 meter range. The closer the pin is to the O.B. line the easier the come back putt becomes and that could be boring. If I want to put a pin in close proximity to an O.B. line I usually want the come back putt to be at least 27' which is not a gimmee for most of the disc golf world.

Stan makes an important point. I would definitely consider, as I think Chuck mentioned elsewhere, requiring a re-tee. Hmm....

 

[Dave242]

Hey, Dave. You bring up an interesting idea. It's one that some of us first heard from Dr. Fred back in the rec.sport.disc days. I know Rodney remembers him.

I've always thought it was intriguing. The picture Mashnut sent is pretty interesting. I do agree with Bogey that natural is better, though it's not always an option, and I'm sure the board would bug a lot of people.

My big question for you is: how did your test turn out?

yeah - I've seen Dr. Fred's designs. His are completely different baskets than normal....nothing wrong with that, but a bigger departure from the norm than what I goofed around with.

My test went as expected. Lots of griping, but nobody could give any real valid design/performance/risk-reward type of answers.......just the "Its not the way the game is supposed to be played" or "It just doesn't feel right" sort of answer.

I tried it out in a night league on a lighted private neighborhood park I designed - Cameron Yards (now extinct). It was a course with 3 baskets, but 18 distinct and varied fairways (of course not recommended for public courses!!).

The two throws I was most curious about it working on were these 2 (7 long & short - 234' & 242' down hill with tons of open airspace):

The shield was installed pretty much dead center from this view (basically same line as seen from the tees) to force a longer throw than just laying up short of the basket for an easy downhill putt.....and to put the downslope towards the water more into play. ....and to still allow an ace-run (not dead straight but hyzering in).

In my observation, it worked really really well for these otherwise very easy holes. The problem on this course was that this basket got thrown at from 4 other directions, and the shield added nothing to 2 of those holes (just an annoyance/distraction) and took away from the hole on 2 others (they were hard enough to get into putting range to begin with, so the penalty was unlucky and therefore unfair/cruel).

Most of the players were in the 940-980 range with a few in the 870-920 range.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Regarding target location near OB, my approach is that OB should never be closer than around 35-40 feet behind or the back sides of a target nor closer than around 12-15 feet in front of the basket. If a player thows OB behind a pin, you don't necessarily want to give them an "automatic" circle putt. If they go OB in front of the pin, they will presumably be moving back to the intial edge of OB or a drop zone for a longer putt. If they land safe behind a pin and OB is 15 feet in front of it, the player has enough room to safely go for the putt while keeping in mind a missed overthrow putt might go OB. The slope of the green and whether the green is sand where a disc will usually stick if it misses like hole 6 at the USDGC temper my recommended distances.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Hey, Jen. Great question.

As Rodney points out, I have done holes with OB closer than 10 meters, and I think they all worked fine. The key has to do with the length of the shot approaching the pin.

Rodney gives a great example: Hole #4 from the Greenbelt course at CR2. It was just 228', a bit downhill, and not wooded but the trees in play definitely tightened it up. In my memory, the OB was probably about 10' behind the pin. Still, you absolutely wanted to go for the birdie, and you'd kick yourself if you went long. Landing within 20' without going OB was a fair test.

Now, I would not use that pin placement on a 300' hole. That's asking too much and does begin to bring luck too much into play.

You're obviously familiar with #5 on Selah Creekside. The pond level has varied a lot with the drought, but it certainly gets a lot closer than 10 meters when the water's up. But at 215', I consider it fair, and it's one of my favorite holes out there.

Actually makes a lot of sense in that what's fair on a 200-230 ft hole may not be fair on a 300-330 ft hole. The closer you are, the more control can be expected. In the low two hundreds, even beginners will be looking for deuces, which means there's the reasonable expectation putting your tee shot near the basket. As long as the OB isn't so near that a truly good shot costs someone a stroke or a disc. And as long as somoen knows where the OB is off the tee, they always have the choice of playing it safe, if they don't feel confident or it particularly windy or sloped near the pin.

 

[johnrhouck]

I want some thoughts on how this hole should play out. I've got three possible tees I'm looking at you can see in the pic. Two would par 3's (Red and Purple) and the Blue would be a par 4.

Red: 450' total. 400' from tee to the far bank. 35' drop in elevation from the tee to the water. 12' rise in elevation from the water up to the basket.

Purple: 450' total. 395' from tee to the far bank. 38' drop in elevation from the tee to the water. 12' rise in elevation from the water up to the basket.

Blue: 626' total. 365' from the tee to water with a 40' drop. 265' from the near side of the water to the basket on the blue line. 15' rise from the water up to the basket.

Both basket placements are about 35' from the water.

I want this to be an epic water crossing and personally I can make it across but I'm not sure if it creates a really boring shot for those who couldn't. It's 400' or 395' from either red or purple to cross but there is a nice drop in elevation from the tee so that would help. If you do layup your throwing less than 260' from either tee and then throwing 180'+ on approach. Purple would be the hardest of those two because of the tree to the left of the flight path and the fact that any discs that fade out will likely splash.

Then you got the possible par 4 blue which takes away the dramatic water crossing off the tee and gives you still a big drive towards water and downhill which might make you splash or layup to short and create a riskier crossing on your second shot.

Thoughts, opinions, objections?

OK, Mr. New. Thanks for you patience.

It looks like a great place for a hole, and I think you have general agreement from everyone that red and purple both look like winers. One difference between the two that I don't recall anyone mentioning is the length of the approach for people who lay up. Looks like red has a longer approach, and that's probably a good thing.

You say you can reach it. I don't know how good you are (probably awesome), but it may be that the people who can't reach it will probably not consider a 200' approach a gimme, and that helps the hole work for them. So you may not have a problem there.

One other aspect I'd be interested in is whether the pin is on a dam. If long shots are going to drop down the back side, then two things happen. Someone who goes 50' past might have the equivalent of a 100'+ approach, which is a good thing. But if the green is too small, your birdie percentage might be too low, and that's a bad thing. Being able to reach t is only half the battle. You need to be able to deuce it often enough, too.

Then again, it may be so beautiful and so much fun that you can throw the book out... just this once.

As for blue, I'm going to agree with Superberry that it's not a stellar par four, but I'm going to have to take issue with his analysis of the numbers. If someone has a 265' approach over water, with a 12-15' elevation, that's not an automatic three. Imagine if it were a 265' hole -- you'd be seeing plenty of threes from there and even some fours, especially if it got windy.

And virtually no one would be throwing a 265' approach from the water's edge, because they'd all be playing a bit safe. I bet most people would be throwing about 300' or more.

The problem with blue is that the drive's too short, so maybe you can back it up. You mentioned somewhere that there were other holes nearby and that you don't have a lot of room to work with. The other, more interesting, thing I'd look for if I could would be to find a tee and pin placement where everyone wanted to stay close to the water's edge, AND longer drives would yield a shorter approach. That would mean turning it into a dogleg, rather than the drive being in line with the pin. You'd be playing a little more along the water's edge. Does that make sense? Actually (as Steve West is probably already thinking) I'm kind of talking about the second shot on Winthrop Gold #5.

Probably the bottom line with blue is: red and purple are really cool holes, and really cool par threes are harder to find than really cool par fours. Maybe don't try to get too clever.

Hope it all works out.

 

[johnrhouck]

Regarding target location near OB, my approach is that OB should never be closer than around 35-40 feet behind or the back sides of a target nor closer than around 12-15 feet in front of the basket. If a player thows OB behind a pin, you don't necessarily want to give them an "automatic" circle putt. If they go OB in front of the pin, they will presumably be moving back to the intial edge of OB or a drop zone for a longer putt. If they land safe behind a pin and OB is 15 feet in front of it, the player has enough room to safely go for the putt while keeping in mind a missed overthrow putt might go OB. The slope of the green and whether the green is sand where a disc will usually stick if it misses like hole 6 at the USDGC temper my recommended distances.

All very well said, Mr. Kennedy.

 

[New013]

Thanks John,

No I'm not that good but I can throw a disc pretty far, though I honestly think that with the 35' drops in elevation a shot to clear the water plays much shorter. At first when I stood in each position it did seem like layups were a bit to short so that's why I considered a par 4 here. Though after I did throw some putters in an attempt to layup it is much trickier than it appears; because you have the elevation drop and it feels short you take a lot off and I don't think I got any layups within 40' of the water.

The green area is on an upward slope and the pin where I have it shown would be about 40ft from the waters edge at it's closest point; the treeline behind it is about 50ft away and 30ft in to the trees is a fence so past that would be OB.

The red does look to have a longer approach but on the actual lines it's just about equal. Though with the red you can layup farther right of the line and get a closer second shot.

The dam is actually on the backside of the pond where I'm looking to put a par four. It's actually not that steep of a slope there as the picture makes it look. It drops about 10ft over 100ft.

Yeah I could back up the blue but I'd have to take out a hole that I like, it's a 285ft shot up the hill that rises 25ft with OB 40ft right and behind the basket. Here's a pic of all three holes as I have them in my head now.

Again, thanks for your input John and everyone else. It is a beautiful part of the property and I want to get it right.

 

[Royal Hill]

Hey, Dave. You bring up an interesting idea. It's one that some of us first heard from Dr. Fred back in the rec.sport.disc days. I know Rodney remembers him.

My big question for you is: how did your test turn out?

John,

I exchange correspondence with Dr Fred currently from time to time. He's not playing much, but still really passionate about the concept behind the directional baskets.

The one public course with the directional baskets in LK Stevens still has an interesting polarizing effect on regional players. Some dedicated lovers, some haters. The course is in good hands with those who have adopted its essence.
The downside of such a departure is that the topic likely overshadows ALL discussions related to the course.

In a way it would be like 2014 Portland worlds using the Hornings courses. The courses might be a great asset, but you and I know that the 2014 worlds would be remembered and overshadowed as the Worlds where we all talked about "those baskets" for two weeks straight.

 

[johnrhouck]

John,

I exchange correspondence with Dr Fred currently from time to time. He's not playing much, but still really passionate about the concept behind the directional baskets.

Glad he's still around. If you remember, please tell him I said hi.

The one public course with the directional baskets in LK Stevens still has an interesting polarizing effect on regional players. Some dedicated lovers, some haters. The course is in good hands with those who have adopted its essence.
The downside of such a departure is that the topic likely overshadows ALL discussions related to the course.

In a way it would be like 2014 Portland worlds using the Hornings courses. The courses might be a great asset, but you and I know that the 2014 worlds would be remembered and overshadowed as the Worlds where we all talked about "those baskets" for two weeks straight.

I'm sure that's true. I guess in some way it's telling that no one up that way has replicated the concept. It occurred to me yesterday that our discussion about the directional basket tied in perfectly to two other things we were discussing. First, I always prefer a "natural" option, meaning that I'd rather use slope and trees to encourage people to use one part of the green over another. And second, that kind of green will work a lot better if players are throwing at it from under 250'. Asking them to be that accurate from too far out becomes too demanding.

I still think about the concept, though. While it's almost impossible to sell to players, there's a good insight behind it.

 

[DanPhillips]

Hello John, I am in the process of designing a course in my back yard. I have 95acres of thick bush with almost no sight lines. The land was logged in the 70's so the trees are not huge and we had an ice storm up here in 98 that destroyed the canopy so in between the larger trees are saplings. I live in a town called Mountain but it is VERY flat. Do you have any recommendations on how to create good holes when they are so hard to visualize on the land? I heat my house with wood so I have no issue with cutting trees down I simply don't know where to start. Any advice would be great. I have read all the articles on your website and enjoyed reading this forum. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[mendofrolfer]

Hi John,
I could really use your input here. We have a small nine hole course in our hometown, we have been working on improving it, at first it wasn't played by a lot of people so we made up a safari Back nine. But now the course is played much more and people are throwing in on each other even on blind holes. Could you give us some feedback on this, is it ever ok to have a course that does this?

 

[907miller]

length to gap ratio?

Hi John, would love some input here:

I am designing a course with some heavy flow restrictions, and after multiple iterations of trying different options, we have fund one to be optimal. However, there is one solitary hole that doesn't quite work very well, but seems to be pretty mandatory to connect parts of the course and maintain good flow.

It is a small chunk of land with river on one side and walking path on the other. It starts wide but tapers down to almost nothing (it worked much better in reverse because of that). This leaves us with little room to work with to avoid high speed errant shots (for pedestrian protection). After scouring this land and pulling my hair out for a while, I found a pretty unconventional hole. It is about 120' with a tee pad 10' or so from a 2.5' or so tree gap, and the basket on a small knoll.

Pros:
- Offers a highly controlled shot that every player should be able to execute
- Slows disc speed to protect pedestrians
- Uses very little land
- Provides a very unique hole seen close to nowhere in my experience (250+ courses in 41 states)
- Provides decent risk/reward (any player can lay up a putt 15' for an easy 3, but most will risk the 2)
Cons:
- many players will hate this hole
- could be conceived "gimmicky"
- the "risk" isnt very high. you could hit the trees and salvage a 3 sometime. double mandoing the trees or adding a small OB island around the trees could change this.
- many players will throw overhand shots through the gap. this could be remedied by screwing some small down trees/branches across the gap at say 8' high and up or something...

So basically I'd be very interested to hear your opinion on a hole like this.

Also, I'm wondering if you have any formula for "distance to gap":"gap width" ratio. i.e. if your double mando is 20 feet off the pad, and your double mando is 6 feet wide, the ratio would be 3.33. The higher, the harder... What is the maximum to not be considered lucky? Is it even a linear correlation?

Thanks for the help!!

 

[Cgkdisc]

Maybe Steve West will see this. He has some data on spray values for shorter distances like this. In my view, at least 2/3 of the throws that players of the skill level the distance from the gap and gap width is designed for should be able to make it through the gap, not necessarily land near the basket, but simply make it through. If only half the throws can make it through, then you basically have a coin flip shot that's mostly luck and the tee should be closer to the gap. It sounds like a situation where you could test different distances to the gap before making the tee final?

 

[jeverett]

Also, I'm wondering if you have any formula for "distance to gap":"gap width" ratio. i.e. if your double mando is 20 feet off the pad, and your double mando is 6 feet wide, the ratio would be 3.33. The higher, the harder... What is the maximum to not be considered lucky? Is it even a linear correlation?

Thanks for the help!!

Personally, I like using angular accuracy as a way of assessing distance to gap, rather than ratio. e.g. if your double mando is 20 feet off of the pad, and 6 feet wide, and the ideal flight line is right down the middle, you effectively have 3ft. of width (in either direction) at 20ft. to work with, otherwise represented as:

angle = arctan (3ft. / 20ft.) or a required angular accuracy of 8.53076561 degrees.

In my experience, requiring even gold level players to throw with an angular accuracy of under 10 degrees is going to induce a fair amount of randomness in the hole. Amateur players, for example, can occasionally be off the 'ideal' flight line by as much as 30 degrees.

 

[johnrhouck]

Hello John, I am in the process of designing a course in my back yard. I have 95acres of thick bush with almost no sight lines. The land was logged in the 70's so the trees are not huge and we had an ice storm up here in 98 that destroyed the canopy so in between the larger trees are saplings. I live in a town called Mountain but it is VERY flat. Do you have any recommendations on how to create good holes when they are so hard to visualize on the land? I heat my house with wood so I have no issue with cutting trees down I simply don't know where to start. Any advice would be great. I have read all the articles on your website and enjoyed reading this forum. Thanks for taking the time.

Hi, Dan --

Sorry to keep you waiting. The technique I use the most is to string up fluorescent tape. I use a lot of pink and orange. When I'm working in the woods, I frequently can't see 50' in front of me, so there's usually tape everywhere. In addition to wrapping individual trees, I'll mark some areas horizontal, some with a forward slash, some with a backslash -- at one spot in Pittsboro I even used a zigzag pattern (see photo).

Sometimes you need to hang tape from a tall branch in order to be able to see it from a distance. Two quick tips: 1. Don't tie it tight -- it's easier to see when it's moving in the wind. 2. Hanging a piece tape off your first tape gives you a better chance of seeing it.

Hope that helps.

 

[johnrhouck]

Hi John,
I could really use your input here. We have a small nine hole course in our hometown, we have been working on improving it, at first it wasn't played by a lot of people so we made up a safari Back nine. But now the course is played much more and people are throwing in on each other even on blind holes. Could you give us some feedback on this, is it ever ok to have a course that does this?

Mendo, I think the easy answer is that no matter how you got there, it is never OK to have a course that does this:

...people are throwing in on each other even on blind holes.

Not knowing anything about the course, I can't suggest a redesign remedy, but it sounds like you really need to do something.

Thanks for the question, and I hope you find a solution before someone gets hurt.