Back on the Road Again - Tour Stop #6 (Sacramento, CA)

[timg]

​

Tour Stop #6
Sacramento, CA
Sunrise Showdown
"A week off, kinda"

After leaving Monterey we headed to our friend Burbee's house to relax and do some minor repairs on the RV. He lives in Lakeport, CA the home of Steady Ed Headrick.

On Tuesday, we headed to the Dynamic Two Disc Challenge at the Black Mountain ball golf/disc golf course. I vended while Synthya played. She said it was a beautiful course and having a cart made for an easier day. On Thursday I taught a free clinic at Highland Hills disc golf course and then on Friday he took us to see his new ball/disc golf course. It sits at the base of an old volcano. When it opens, it will be a destination.

We also started to sell off my collection of discs and gear on disc golf collector's exchange. I have been posting daily. I am finally letting go of my gems that I have held onto for years. I want to buy a house, so goodbye old discs.

On Sunday Burbee and I drove up to Sacramento and played in the Sunrise Showdown at Drew Gibson's new ball/disc golf course. Fellow teammate Emil Dahlgren and I tied for first shooting the exact same scores 51, 51 for a -14 total. We decided to call it a tie and we walked away with $500 each. I liked the course and had fun, thanks Drew. Also thanks to Burbee for taking me and letting us stay at his house for a week. Those little repairs were needed!

​

Now I could keep going on in this diary style, but I don't want to bore you. I would like to have a positive discussion on some interesting disc golf topics. First topic will be course design.

I have seen many beautiful and fun courses to play. I also understand that people with much more experience than me have put much thought, creativity, and effort into designing courses. I would like to thank all people who have given there sweat, time, and money to design and install courses that I had the privilege of playing. I understand that it is mostly volunteers and that most have a job and or a family. So thank you.

That being said I would like to have intelligent conversation to stimulate my brain, hear others opinions, and help the design of courses worldwide to evolve.


Question #1
How can we in this sport design courses that are fun, challenging, and that reward or penalize the player based on how far they were from the course designers intended shot fairly?

 

[jchoate7]

Question #1
How can we in this sport design courses that are fun, challenging, and that reward or penalize the player based on how far they were from the course designers intended shot fairly?

There are courses out there that do this already, unfortunately not many of them are on the National Tour. The courses that come to mind (that I have played) are Nockamixon, and Iron Hill. What I like most about these courses are that on the par 4s and 5s the tee shots are placement shots. Most of the time there is no reward for throwing a 500ft bomb but instead you need a tight 350-400ft shot to set up your next. I'm going to tick some people off with my next statement but I think that although Iron Hill and Nockamixon do a great job of providing these shots there are sometimes holes that are too tight (Hole 17 at Iron Hill for example). Sometimes its a crap shoot hitting a line there and its just throw and pray. I will say however that both of these courses punish you for getting off the fairway which is what I love about the design at both of these courses. Another thing I like is the minimal amount of OB and mandos that are at these courses. In my opinion a mando is bad course design, its just a gimmick to force you to throw the designers intended line rather than the course naturally punish you for throwing not the intended line. I know that mandos are required for safety and it's a necessary thing in disc golf design but some designers rely to heavily on them rather than design a good course.

 

[williamlbird]

Birdman

I'm 62 years old and have been playing a couple of years now. I started tournament play a year ago and have played in 5 tournaments. Having played ball golf for 40 years I have noticed a problem in attracting the "seniors" to disc golf. There are a lot of courses designed for the young guys who throw 400+ which is a distinct disadvantage for the old guys (and girls). The tournaments allow us to use the shorter tee boxes but that isn't quite enough. Ball golf courses have 3-4 sets of tees for the advanced players down through the seniors and/or ladies tees. I know it is costly to install 18 or more tee boxes, however, the course designers could layout, on paper at least, a hole design where the seniors and beginners would have a place to tee up that would make the course more enjoyable. I realize the senior players are competing against each other from the same tee boxes regardless of the length of the hole, but isn't the point of the game to have fun? Since there isn't any handicapping in the game, an easy fix when playing against the better players is to use different tee boxes. That way the drives would end up in the approximate same area which would make the younger vs. older players more competitive.

 

[Magicweed]

I fully support the idea of multiple teepads that still fall within the original design of the hole. While the gold tee might require a disc to fly 400ft before finishing left around a bend, the white tees could be situated on the right side of the fairway, closer to the bend and still maintain the intended line. Where I feel we can impact risk and reward is in the "layering" at the edges of the intended fairway. With selective trimming of trees and shrubs, we can create a "rough" similar to ball golf, where you still have the opportunity to make a good shot, but line selection would be less than optimal and could impact disc selection. Safe placement shots reward you with open approaches that give you an opportunity for birdie, but an easy par. If you throw too far, or too tight to the edge of the fairway, you may make the birdie much easier, but the risk of having to scramble for par becomes much higher. I have played a number of courses where a great shot was rewarded with a birdie, but the brush and trees off the fairway made getting up and down from a bad shot nearly impossible. The longer the hole, the less enjoyable this kind of situation is.

I'd like to see larger layouts with long par 3s, more par 4s and 5s, well defined fairways that can incorporate multiple shot styles (each with benefits and drawbacks), multiple teepads designed for different rating ranges (white, blue, gold), multiple pin positions (within the same green area so they can impact shot placement or approach style) and a purposeful "rough" that can hinder your progression toward the basket but be fair. Quite the wish list, considering designs like this would require a lot more acreage than current courses.

 

[teemkey]

I agree with the comments above. It is important for course designers to consider player demographics other than 16-40 year old males. Women, young juniors, and older players want to have fun too.

It is interesting to note that sometimes a longer hole can cater to shorter throwers by providing lower-risk landing zones between higher-risk landing zones.

 

[teemkey]

After watching some BSF footage, another suggestion occurred to me: placement of multiple tee pads. The usual placement is to place the shorter pad directly in front of the longer pad. Milo has a few holes where the shorter pad is well off to the side, and presents a very different driving line for the hole. This, as well as the holes that offer different elevation challenges between their pads, are some of the reasons Milo is a destination course for players of all skill levels.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

We need to define what is fair.

To me that would mean there is very little luck or chance involved and clear replicatable line to the basket which a disc is designed to fly.

Distance is killing the fun factor for many normal players. It is no fun to play holes stretching 400'+ that require 2 drives to get to the basket and very little shot shaping. With the difference in skill at the top level vs average players there needs to be two thoughts or ways to course design. Professional/championship and recreational/leisure layouts with proper pars. "Pro" level need more par 2's and tighter forced lines which make you shape different shots. Too often throwing far brings in a significant advanatge in how you can go over or around otherwise designed obstacles. Shortening some of those holes IMO would actually help tighten some of the gaps to hit.

Hole 1 at the USDGC (i think it is)always suprises me how many pros and the like dont just park it. IMO thats good and entertaining disc golf.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hole 1 is barely good enough to not be a par 2 because players' names are announced each round. That probably adds 0.2 to the scoring average.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Hole 1 is barely good enough to not be a par 2 because players' names are announced each round. That probably adds 0.2 to the scoring average.

for us laymen, what does that exactly mean? I would love to see it as a par 2 but not sure that is what you are saying and nor was I but great example outside of my post combining both concepts.

 

[bnbanbury]

IMO heavily wooded courses with clear, defined fairways are the best way to achieve this. Iron Hill is my favorite course for this reason. You dont have to throw 450' to score well there and all the tees are inside the wood line eliminating the giant up-and-over hyzers that plague moderately wooded courses with open tees. It tests a golfers ability to hit lines without resorting to plinko holes with tiny trees in the fairway.

You can't eliminate all the bounces and kicks that people sometimes get when they miss the intended line without doing something ridiculous. The triple mando hole 7 at USDGC certainly is a hole where there is almost no luck involved and you have to throw it to one spot or be penalized but i also think it is a terrible hole.

 

[Cgkdisc]

for us laymen, what does that exactly mean? I would love to see it as a par 2 but not sure that is what you are saying and nor was I but great example outside of my post combining both concepts.

The scoring average hovers around 2.5 so Harold is still okay calling it a par 3. But it would likely average 2.3-2.4 if it were later on the course and Andy wasn't announcing you name with people watching before you throw each day. I still think Harold might be mulling a tweak or two on that hole so we'll see this Fall.

 

[CrowLegs]

Ideally, a course with multiple tee pads would treat each of the tee locations as equally important. The distance might be shorter for the short tees, but the challenge should still be there. In a lot of cases I've seen, the short tees are the "easy" ones not only in distance but in line. The long tees are harder because they are longer AND require more shaping. This seems wrong to me, but I'm sure many people would respond "just throw longer". That's legitimate, but consider that we want to encourage life-long play. Even if I could throw 400' now at 51, I want to play and be challenged when I'm 71 and probably could throw half that.

Maybe a great course should have three sets of pads. One for beginners that is a more open and short, to encourage success for newer players. One for experienced players who want a challenge but are not capable of throwing the really long shots. And finally a "pro" level tee that requires distance and control. If played by the intended audience, the par should be the same from all three (but I for one don't care about par, and don't want to derail the conversation).

I'm sure there are a lot of courses that implement that strategy, but certainly not all. One of our local courses in Columbus, The Players Course at Alum Creek, has recently installed permanent multiple tees. On one water hole in particular, they have three pads that follow the beginner/challenging-but-not-long/pro concept. I love the fact that there are options.

 

[Magicweed]

IMO heavily wooded courses with clear, defined fairways are the best way to achieve this. Iron Hill is my favorite course for this reason. You dont have to throw 450' to score well there and all the tees are inside the wood line eliminating the giant up-and-over hyzers that plague moderately wooded courses with open tees. It tests a golfers ability to hit lines without resorting to plinko holes with tiny trees in the fairway.

You can't eliminate all the bounces and kicks that people sometimes get when they miss the intended line without doing something ridiculous. The triple mando hole 7 at USDGC certainly is a hole where there is almost no luck involved and you have to throw it to one spot or be penalized but i also think it is a terrible hole.

I really enjoy golf on tight wooded courses , but I do want the opportunity to really open up and throw 450' as well. I don't think that either of those things is mutually exclusive and a well designed course would test multiple elements. You can have a 680' par 4 that requires a 400' placement drive and a technical upshot to card the birdie (from the gold tees) while still having a tight 240' anhyzer/forehand hole where you might only need two tees (blue/gold and red/white). I think the key is to make sure that you are always designing good golf shots and looking at the potential alternate routes. That way you can be aware of the big sky hyzer or thumber route and how it might play out on the hole.

Also, I think the way we design our greens and pin placements could be better thought out. More often than not they get tucked into places, especially when considering alternate pins after the initial design. If you were to designate two areas to be greens, a shorter and longer green, you could also designate multiple positions on that green that could drastically affect how you approach the green. Say you have an oval shaped area ~40' deep and 70' wide. There is a window to get into the area, with the left side having almost no bushes or trees, but the right side is well protected. If you place the basket on the left side of that oval area, a RHBH dominant player has a much easier approach, since a straight/hyzer shot can get through the window and skip toward the basket. If the basket is on the right side, the approach becomes very different for that RHBH player. They can now throw the same straight/hyzer shot and be outside the circle for their putt. They can try to throw an anhyzer through the window in an attempt to get closer, but risk getting stuck in the rough and having almost no putt, or they can break out the forehand and attempt the same thing. While this might not increase the scoring separation for the best players in the world, a simple design consideration like that can make a world of difference. In ball golf, the players approach to the pin is often dictated by the pins location and the contours that come into play. It can change which club they use, where they try to land the ball and what kind of spin it has on it. If we take a look at the natural features of our potential greens and utilize them we can force the same kinds of decisions.

Also, on the note of eliminating bounces and kicks, we should never try and eliminate those things. They are a part of the game. What we should do is take into consideration how much a player is penalized when they get a bounce or kick. If someone takes a risky, unintended line, the penalty should be harsher. However, if you throw an almost perfect line, 95% of the way down the fairway, a stray kick off a tree or bounce should not take you from a birdie opportunity to a double bogey because of jail. That would not be fair. Thinning out the rough near the intended landing zones would be something that I would consider in any course design.

 

[grotto]

Question #1
How can we in this sport design courses that are fun, challenging, and that reward or penalize the player based on how far they were from the course designers intended shot fairly?

To me, it doesn't really matter. I'll play any course available to my abilities.

Nice courses with many options and 3 tees are probably going to end up being pay to play courses in the future. A nice balance of challenging and "free" one tee park courses will promote the sport best I believe.

Fair? I don't think it's possible, there is always going to be a Simon out there that can push the boundaries and the more you try to "Simon proof" a course, the more you alienate the average player.

When I first started playing ball golf, we played the white tees and the better we got, it felt like cheating so we graduated to the gold tees. Granted, we could no longer cut corners or shoot over trees, but we had to play smarter.

At my age, I'll never be a pro who can throw 500ft bombs, but I still prefer a challenge to a dumb down easy course that falsely makes me feel warm and fuzzy, I may feel good about my score, but I know where my bad shots would have really killed me on a better course.

Tight wooded courses are an equalizer but even if I can't rip the big one, I still like to have a few open tee shots with protected baskets for the approach challenge.

Given all the flak course designers seem to get, I applaud you all for making course and promoting the sport with the limited resources and man power you may have to work with.

 

[teemkey]

Clearly the way to punish inaccurate drives is to make the next shot more difficult. While OB is an easy solution, it takes away the chance for par with a *great* recovery. I really enjoy extreme anhyzers, rollers, and overhand throws that salvage a par or better after a poor drive and/or bad tree kick.

If your course has tree lines, they are an easy way to capture the poor drives; however, green design, long rough, and fairway slopes/undulations also impair the approach shot from off center fairway.

Green design: if the basket is tucked 50' or so into the woods so a small opening must be hit to get into the circle; a peninsula style when approaching from the wrong angle is extremely difficult. Island and (partial) volcano designs might be able to achieve this with minimal effort.

Long rough: Poor footing and possibly impaired the player's throwing motion makes the 2nd shot a challenge. I don't really like this option because finding discs becomes a problem.

Slopes/undulations: bad footing, impaired run up, and unusual release angles makes for reasonable increase in difficulty.

Certainly a designer's options are limited by the land, and the amount of change the land owners permit.