Tampora, you raise some good points. I'm tied up the next few days but will get back t you next week.
-
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
Tampora, you raise some good points. I'm tied up the next few days but will get back t you next week.
Zach, it almost sounds like it was designed for a 150' drive and a 150' approach -- do you think that's what the designer had in mind, or is it just a very severe angle?
^Hey John... it feels like a 150' drive and then a 150' approach. I am not sure that it is what the designer, Drew Smith, had in mind. I am not sure that we executed the plan well as a club. Drew had to move before we actually started to work the course, unfortunately.
DSmith
Eagle Member
That was a 'While the cat's away,the mice will play" hole.
I didnt have a direct hand in that hole as it was one of the ones put in after I moved.
Here's my opinion after playing it however in the Lexington Open a few months back.
The tee shot is fine it's not a dogleg but a hard left hyzer for right handers. The wall of trees that you have to throw through at the bend need to be both thinned out and the overhead branches need to be trimmed up so that you can get enough height to make the shot to the "green" with a good shot as opposed to a luck shot. I'd also thin out the small trees within 60 ft of the pin and the right side of the last part of the fairway.
Leave the pinch point through the fence, clean it up of course but leave it as it creates a skill shot as opposed to a just crank out a spike hyzer shot.
DSmith
Eagle Member
Oh and clear out the honey suckle in the direct line to the basket so you can see where the pin is but not creating a cheater route. I cant stand par 3's where you cant see the basket or have to spot.
I guess that it is more of a hyzer line... the trees and honeysuckle that need to be removed do make it a more extreme angle than what it is. Still not sure how I feel about the hole. I think that it has the possibility to be good with more work. Just not totally sure where or how though. It does need some more height, cleared near the pin. I guess that we can definitely start there.
Sounds like you guys are working it out. I would only say that, as a rule, if a really good shot (not necessarily a great shot) gets you 80' from the hole, you need to open it up more. Really good shots deserve a better reward. Good luck with it.
OK, Tampora, thanks for your patience. Here are some thoughts for you.
First of all, I understand your insistence on avoiding holes that make life overwhelmingly difficult for LARS (Lefties and Righty Sidearmers) or RALF (Righties and Lefty Forehanders). In general, I agree. Many holes, maybe even most, will favor one "hand" over the other. But we should be very careful with holes that force someone to throw using a delivery they don't prefer.
At this point in the sport's development, I think the prevailing wisdom is that people should be able to throw both deliveries when needed, but to say that every pro should be able to throw at least 350' both ways is not where we are today. And we're certainly not expecting am and rec players to throw both styles equally well. Demanding that someone throw an occasional 150'-200' sidearm is OK, but we try not to demand more than that. So when I see a 200' hole where a righty's only chance for success is a sidearm, I can live with it, as long as there's a similar place where a lefty is forced to throw a sidearm. As you say, it doesn't always work out that way, and I personally try not to design holes like that anyway.
But a 300' hole that forces someone to throw the "other" delivery is something most designers would consider not acceptable, at least not today. Maybe that'll change.
I also agree with you that balance is a critical and basic component of any good course. As I said in the article, "We all understand and value balance, variety, safety, challenge, fun, and aesthetics." I just didn't go into detail about those basic principles, because my goal for that piece was to present state-of-the-art principles.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence:
Are you saying that you want a hole where righties have to throw a sidearm, to compensate for all the holes where lefties are forced to throw sidearms?
OlyWa, I actually did talk to the owner this week, and I can tell you that there's been some great work going on and that there will be some significant news in the next 3-4 weeks.
I'm still hope that the course will officially open while Washington is experiencing weather that might qualify as "spring" in Texas, even if the calendar doesn't necessarily indicate that it's spring in Washington.
Thanks for asking, and hang in there a little longer.
Magic, I'm really glad to hear that you're enjoying those articles -- that's what they're there for.
As for courses with par in the high sixties, just about every course I've done in the last several years has been at least Par 63, and at least eight have been Par 66 or higher. All are appropriate for gold level play (though I'd want to put in some longer pin positions on some holes if they were to have gold level play exclusively).
I personally don't like to go above 67-68 at this point. Our sport has such a long history of par 3 holes, and I don't know that we ever want to get to where the typical course has fewer than 6-8 par 3 holes. One reason is that it makes sense for us to have par 3's where players will want to to use drivers off the tee -- that just doesn't happen in ball golf, and it's one of the most obvious differences between our sport and theirs.
So I would say that there are a good numbers of courses -- existing and in the works -- that are taking our sport to that new level.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,692
i'm pretty sure that's exactly what he's saying. what do you think about the idea?
as for course par, i have two questions.
do you think a par 6 hole is reasonable, presuming it was a good, well-designed hole?
what would you think about this possible course:
(7) par 3
(5) par 4
(5) par 5
(1) par 6
total: 72
is that a decent distribution or is it too long?
Hey John... same course (Jacobson Park Blue course).... new problem. I am trying to eliminate the tweener holes on this course. This is one of them. This is a par 4 hole (I believe mostly because of the extreme angle in the middle of the fairway. The hole does not reward the better player and better shot. The teesign is a little off. I would say that the tee to the mando is probably about 125 feet.... the hole then plays downhill to the basket maybe 275. A 1000 rated player normally throw over the trees on a spike.... then has a 120+ foot putt.... putts out. A 900 rated player normally throws through the gap, throws a 200 foot upshot and putts out. What would you do with this hole? My first thought was to move the pad back another 40-50 feet to make it more of a par 4 (the club doesn't want to do this). Second thought was to place the pad closer to the gap and right to make a really tough par 3. Looking for better scoring spread. Thanks!
Last edited:
Third thought would be to shift the pad just right maybe 20 feet to eliminate some of the angle.
This is my solution.... for the above problem:
On the pic above, the green areas are where we made a mistake on hole distance. Yellow circles are current baskets, orange lines are fairway. Blue line is where I made a change in line to new basket, which is blue circle. On hole 8, the new pad is the blue box.
grodney
* Ace Member *
Hi John. Tweener holes came up in a different thread. I know it's been discussed in many articles and in many threads, so I don't know that you really need to respond anything. But I just didn't have a better place to put this graphical analysis of your hole designs.
Selah holes in the 376-525 range:
Lake 9 - Tight tee shot, narrow fairway, anhyzer hook approach.
Lake 14 - Lots of trees.
Creek 12 - Uphill.
Selah holes in the 376-525 range:
Lake 9 - Tight tee shot, narrow fairway, anhyzer hook approach.
Lake 14 - Lots of trees.
Creek 12 - Uphill.
bacavett
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2014
- Messages
- 2
Hi John,
As an avid course designer I have found your articles to be very informative. I tend to go back and reread them as a refresher as well. I appreciate you taking the time to write them as there doesn't seem to be much literature out on disc golf course design at the moment (or atleast that I can find).
My question to you is: unlike ball golf, course designers don't have the luxury to design a course just as they'd like. Adding trees, sand, brush, etc. where they like. We tend to have to make the best out of the land provided. Sometimes this means having very open holes where the park is mostly open with just tall brush and a few trees here and there. Do you have any tips on how to make an open hole still be challenging? Possibly by shaping the fairway a certain way or maybe keeping brush patches on the fairways in key areas?
Thank you.
As an avid course designer I have found your articles to be very informative. I tend to go back and reread them as a refresher as well. I appreciate you taking the time to write them as there doesn't seem to be much literature out on disc golf course design at the moment (or atleast that I can find).
My question to you is: unlike ball golf, course designers don't have the luxury to design a course just as they'd like. Adding trees, sand, brush, etc. where they like. We tend to have to make the best out of the land provided. Sometimes this means having very open holes where the park is mostly open with just tall brush and a few trees here and there. Do you have any tips on how to make an open hole still be challenging? Possibly by shaping the fairway a certain way or maybe keeping brush patches on the fairways in key areas?
Thank you.
jenb
* Ace Member *
Hi, John. I was talking to a friend who runs a scout troop that has the city mayor on the local boy scout council. He said they get whatever they want from the city. I half jokingly mentioned getting a course installed locally as an eagle scout project and he seemed to really like the idea. Have you ever worked with a scout troop on such a project? Is it something you would consider doing?
OK, Gang. Time for some catchup. Thanks for hanging in there with me.
So the question is, what do I think about this idea: "you want a hole where righties have to throw a sidearm, to compensate for all the holes where lefties are forced to throw sidearms."
I'm not a huge fan of holes that force anyone to throw a particular delivery. As I've said, I think that demanding (or expecting) that someone throw an occasional 150'-200' sidearm is OK, but we try not to demand more than that. So when I see a 200' hole where a righty's only chance for success is a sidearm, I can live with it, as long as there's a similar place where a lefty is forced to throw a sidearm. But a 300' hole that forces someone to throw the "other" delivery is something most designers would consider not acceptable, at least not today. Maybe that'll change.
I do believe that if you're asking it of one group of throwers, you can (and often should) ask it of the other. But the best scenario is not to have a bunch of holes that force lefties to throw sidearms in the first place.
The only par six I know of is at Highbridge, and I don't have a problem with it. Personally, I think that designing a great par five is so hard -- you need so much cooperation from the land -- that I can barely imagine being able to do all that and add an extra throw. I'd probably rather do a five and a three, or a four and a four. Second, as much as I love to innovate, there are some things I'm just traditional about, and a world of threes, fours, and fives feels right to me.
The distribution is good, because it has enough par threes for me, and I'm sure you could talk me into the par six if it were a really good hole. I do think 72 is a lot at this point, but I wouldn't object to it just one its face. One place I'm getting concerned is tournaments. If you look at Selah and Trey for example, which average just about par 67, we're hearing from some players that two rounds a day is too much for them. (Of course, we're hearing from most players that two rounds a day is great.) So I wonder if we're on the edge. Two rounds a day on the course you describe is probably too much. But one round a day might be wonderful.
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate the questions.
So the question is, what do I think about this idea: "you want a hole where righties have to throw a sidearm, to compensate for all the holes where lefties are forced to throw sidearms."
I'm not a huge fan of holes that force anyone to throw a particular delivery. As I've said, I think that demanding (or expecting) that someone throw an occasional 150'-200' sidearm is OK, but we try not to demand more than that. So when I see a 200' hole where a righty's only chance for success is a sidearm, I can live with it, as long as there's a similar place where a lefty is forced to throw a sidearm. But a 300' hole that forces someone to throw the "other" delivery is something most designers would consider not acceptable, at least not today. Maybe that'll change.
I do believe that if you're asking it of one group of throwers, you can (and often should) ask it of the other. But the best scenario is not to have a bunch of holes that force lefties to throw sidearms in the first place.
The only par six I know of is at Highbridge, and I don't have a problem with it. Personally, I think that designing a great par five is so hard -- you need so much cooperation from the land -- that I can barely imagine being able to do all that and add an extra throw. I'd probably rather do a five and a three, or a four and a four. Second, as much as I love to innovate, there are some things I'm just traditional about, and a world of threes, fours, and fives feels right to me.
The distribution is good, because it has enough par threes for me, and I'm sure you could talk me into the par six if it were a really good hole. I do think 72 is a lot at this point, but I wouldn't object to it just one its face. One place I'm getting concerned is tournaments. If you look at Selah and Trey for example, which average just about par 67, we're hearing from some players that two rounds a day is too much for them. (Of course, we're hearing from most players that two rounds a day is great.) So I wonder if we're on the edge. Two rounds a day on the course you describe is probably too much. But one round a day might be wonderful.
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate the questions.
