grodney
* Ace Member *
Hi John. As the designer of some of the best 2-shot and 3-shot holes in the world, what is your take on having Stand & Deliver mandated for non-tee-shots?
-
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
Rodney, I'm glad you appreciate those holes -- I know you've played a lot of my favorites. I saw your S&D thread the other day, so I have actually thought about it a bit. I am not a fan. For those who haven't seen the thread http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88496&highlight=stand here is Rodney's summary of the pros and cons:
Advantages:
- Easier for player to take and confirm a correct stance.
- Easier for stance violations to be called.
- Adds an additional skill to be developed and demonstrated.
- Allows multi-shot holes to be shorter distances, thus allowing less space to be used.
- Fewer injuries caused by fairway runups.
Disadvantages:
- Removes the "wow factor" of long throws.
- The runup is fundamental to throwing.
- More injuries caused by standing.
- Gives an unfair advantage to strong players.
- Judgement call on the 1-second no-forward-movement period.
The first two advantages on stance calls would be nice, but I don't see that we have a big problem there. And you counterbalance it to some degree with the 1-second period, "Adding an additional skill" is counterbalanced by removing an additional skill. Using less land can certainly be an advantage in theory, but I think the difference in the amount of land used would be quite small.
You have injuries on both lists. I don't see that we have a substantial problem now, and I'm not sure which would be more harmful.
To me, the biggest issue is the freedom to throw how you want, and the great enjoyment we get from throwing as far as possible, which you sometimes have to do on second and third shots. I just can't see a way to justify taking that away.
And I'll give you another disadvantage: it reduces the reward for keeping your drive in the fairway. If you miss the fairway in an area with trees or other obstacles, your run-up may be compromised, whereas in the fairway it won't be. I count on that when designing rough areas.
And here's one more. I love to use a putter for approach shots whenever I can. If I couldn't run up on a 200-275' footer, I might have to move to a midrange disc. I think taking away that disc choice makes the game less strategic.
One more interesting note: the new course at Frost Valley YMCA has several rocky areas that I was able to incorporate as a different kind of "sand trap." I immediately thought of the S&D debate when I saw them. In these areas, you will not be able to use a run-up, so they are a natural and elegant way to create extra challenge for a shot that missed the fairway.
grodney
* Ace Member *
Awesome John, thanks. Although we disagree on a couple of the points, your comments obviously echo the more intelligent responses on that thread. No sense re-hashing those differences here in your thread -- I'll save that for in-person over a Shiner. As a visionary, legend, and friend, I appreciate your insights on the design and game-play aspects.
And add another YAHTZEE to the Frost Valley project with those naturally-occurring "bunkers". Wow.
And add another YAHTZEE to the Frost Valley project with those naturally-occurring "bunkers". Wow.
Yeah, the Frost Valley areas worked out better than I had hoped. Since there weren't trees involved, I didn't think it was right to call them PITTSBOROS, so we're now calling them Footing Restricted Opportunities to Save Three (FROST). They're mentioned in my upcoming article in the PDGA magazine.
As a friend, I look forward to that Shiner, and I respect your right to be wrong (just as you respect mine, of course).
As a friend, I look forward to that Shiner, and I respect your right to be wrong (just as you respect mine, of course).
Sorry it's taken a while for me to get back here; and also that I didn't explain this well enough. In ball golf, putting is #1. You hit 18-36 putts a round. Driving is #2. On average, you hit 16 drives a round (every hole but par 3s). Approach game is #3. Any time you go for a green and miss, your approach game comes in to play and can count as a putt if you're good at it. Long iron game is #4. Generally, you'll hit 4 long irons a round (2 par 3s, 2 par 5s), and you're only rewarded if they're spot on; pretty close is the same as not close at all because your approach game should cover the span between pretty close and not close.
In disc golf, Putting is #1 for the same reason. However, 90+% of the courses I play, "long iron" shots (200-350') take the place of driving, and driving takes the place of long irons. Then I would say the escape game of disc golf is synonymous with the approach game of ball golf.
Edit: I might almost say 200-350 is the most important distance. Seems like I have a shot at this distance on most holes; if it's withing 30, this distance is equal to putting, but you can park those shots and not need to putt. I actually went through a time playing some of my best rounds where I never putted. I'd just lay it up next to the basket and drop it in; never trying to "make a putt".
Now, the problem I have is that any hacker/chucker can park a 300' hole, and they have 16 chances a round to do that. However, AJ or GG can park a 450' hole, and they have about 2 chances a round to do that. And it's 50% more difficult for them to park that hole (just based on angular error, I suppose). Some famous golfer (might have been hogan) said "Par 3s are the great equalizer. Anyone can get lucky and take a stroke on me on a par 3."
So I suppose the question I'm asking is "is this intentional, or a condition of disc golf not having great choices in land to put courses on?" And if it's intentional, what is the reason for it?
Last edited:
So, maybe this has been asked before, but John, would you classify your course design work as a hobby or a job? Will there ever be enough money in disc golf to make something like this a career?
Thanks for the question, TT. Easiest one in a long time, actually: course design is absolutely my full-time job. As far as there being enough money, we're getting closer all the time. The sport keeps growing, as does the demand for the highest quality courses.
texhop58
Eagle Member
Simple question: should wind be a factor in hole length.
Reason: the course I helped designed is almost always windy more then 15 mph. It's usually in 20's with gust into the 40s (typical for north Texas)
We put in the first 12 in march (avg 262 in length). Some said they were too easy/short when being built yet scores have ranged with the local best player scoring -9 to plus 3. He usually is around -5/6range and is about 975 player. When there is no wind he usually rips up the course. I did my walk through the ideal last 6. They were to be our long holes with the last 6 averaging 375. I am now thinking maybe we should shrink the lengths of some because of the normal terrible wind conditions.
Reason: the course I helped designed is almost always windy more then 15 mph. It's usually in 20's with gust into the 40s (typical for north Texas)
We put in the first 12 in march (avg 262 in length). Some said they were too easy/short when being built yet scores have ranged with the local best player scoring -9 to plus 3. He usually is around -5/6range and is about 975 player. When there is no wind he usually rips up the course. I did my walk through the ideal last 6. They were to be our long holes with the last 6 averaging 375. I am now thinking maybe we should shrink the lengths of some because of the normal terrible wind conditions.
grodney
* Ace Member *
So on a 1-shot hole, for instance, do you ever watch players play it? If so, are you ever concerned with how it's playing? I know you probably can't put numbers on it, but if you watch a field of 72 players play a 1-shot hole you designed, at what point does their performance concern you? If only 10% of them are putting after 1 shot, are you concerned? 20%? When do you start to re-think your design or consider a tweak?
Texhop, I like the way you're thinking about this question. Wind absolutely needs to be a consideration in hole length.
To find a solution, I would look a different data. Rather than looking at players' total score for the holes you have, look at the scores for individual players on individual holes. I think that's what Rodney was pointing to.
For your new holes, again look at individual lengths. If an average of 375' means some holes are 370' and some are 380', you're probably gong to have a problem. If it means some are 275' and some are 475' (upwind), then you might be OK.
The big picture is always important, but you need to make sure each individual hole works.
By the way, wind should be a factor in hole direction, dogleg angles, distance to OB and pretty much every other aspect of hole design.
texhop58
Eagle Member
Thank you. I did try to take wind in consideration on front holes, but the wind comes in from 3 different directions. So what is easy one day becomes a hard shot 2 days later. I appreciate the input and hopefully can convince my partner that we should shrink a hole or two.
John, having worked with you in preparing the available redesigned holes at Live Oak City Park for the Live Oak Summer Open, and reading this thread regularly, I have questions.
1. Were/are there any special or unusual conditions you had to consider when redesigning the LO courses?
2. What level (white, blue, red, gold) are the 2 sets of tees?
3. Do you try to keep a balance of holes on a course (lefty, righty, neutral)?
3. Have you had prior examples of a tournament played at a course you were redesigning and are you interested in hearing feedback from the tournament players?
4. Finally, what cool acronym will you come up with for a design element at LO to go with PITTSBORO and FROST?
Btw, walking a course in the middle of your redesign and hearing and seeing some of your design methods was a very interesting experience.
Corey
1. Were/are there any special or unusual conditions you had to consider when redesigning the LO courses?
2. What level (white, blue, red, gold) are the 2 sets of tees?
3. Do you try to keep a balance of holes on a course (lefty, righty, neutral)?
3. Have you had prior examples of a tournament played at a course you were redesigning and are you interested in hearing feedback from the tournament players?
4. Finally, what cool acronym will you come up with for a design element at LO to go with PITTSBORO and FROST?
Btw, walking a course in the middle of your redesign and hearing and seeing some of your design methods was a very interesting experience.
Corey
Hey, Corey. Give me a minute here.
OK, Corey, good to hear from you, and thanks for the questions.
I guess the most unusual part of this process is getting permission from four sets of landowners. But it's all been pretty smooth. What's most special to me about Live Oak is the opportunity to do new things, like building a rock-lined, elevated landing area. That's something I've wanted to do for a long time.
Pretty much blue and red, so we can accommodate experienced and new players. Many holes will also have a longer pin option, so that the course can have a Gold setup, too.
Absolutely. Not just L/R/S, but long/short, open/tight, OB right/OB left. etc. etc. Real balance can be pretty complicated.
Not really on prior experience, but always interested in constructive feedback. And absolutely interested in scoring data, so if you guys still have the scorecards, I'd love to review them. I did see a few comments on Facebook, which I appreciated. At this point, comments on holes that aren't finished don't necessarily do a lot of good, but I'm always willing to listen, especially when someone has suggestions on how we can make it better. Please let players know they can write to me directly: [email protected]. I will listen intently, virtually eternally -- opinions advance knowledge.
Please see the previous answer.
That's good to hear. And thanks for your help and input. We still have a way to go, but my goals haven't changed: to make these the best municipal courses in Texas. Dee and I love Live Oak. Talk to you soon.
Listen Intently, Virtually Eternally -- Opinions Advance Knowledge - awesome!
Thanks, John!
I'll pass along your interest in "knowledge advancing opinions".
As always, any time you need asistance with any of the work at Live Oak, I'm happy to pitch in.
Thanks, John!
I'll pass along your interest in "knowledge advancing opinions".
As always, any time you need asistance with any of the work at Live Oak, I'm happy to pitch in.
Realized I didn't answer all of your questions. There were complaints about a couple of things: long walks between holes (expected, especially some of the temp holes) and Hole 8 (400' over the water and bailout areas).
But, overall, it seemed players were happy with the new holes. I was happy with how everything went especially considering the complications we had to work around.
But, overall, it seemed players were happy with the new holes. I was happy with how everything went especially considering the complications we had to work around.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 948
LLLOOOLLL John. This is pure gold right here.
Yeah hole 8 has no good bail out area at all. Needs a little wider gap to get to the original tee box.
Is there supposed to be a drop box on Hole #18 of the Creekside Course at Selah? If you cant reach 318 feet or its just real windy are we supposed to just play to the left and try and drive to the short tee box??? What if there is no spotter and you cant tell from the long box if you crossed land or not on your 1st shot. Great hole but with a strong wind it is almost impossible.
