Course design frustration.

[mashnut]

So are you saying her choice should be 1. play the desired course layout against a field not desired or 2. play against the desired field on a course layout not desired?

Something to keep in mind is that most players have no sense of what tees provide the best competition for the skill level of their division. Tees that are appropriate for the 1000+ rated men aren't going to be the ones that do the best job of separating scores for the 900-950 rated top women. It's not sexism to provide them with the best opportunity to have the course accurately separate them by score just because they don't understand the rationale behind it. It's the same with divisions like intermediate wanting to play long tees designed for blue or gold level players, it might seem like the most fun but it's not the best competitive challenge.

Building a course strictly for beginners seems like a big waste of money and resources. The beginner will quickly move on to more challenging courses and advanced players will avoid it.
I'm not saying that all new courses should be designed to be as difficult as possible, but I don't think courses should be designed with beginners in mind.
And any veteran player who introduces a friend to disc golf by taking them to a very difficult course is an idiot.

I'm a 950ish rated player and I play beginner courses all the time. When I have 45 minutes, I can go get a putter round in on a short 9 hole course. When I want to take new players out, they have a lot more fun on a well designed shorter course than on a bigger course where they're constantly having to let better players play through. When I lived in the midwest I often played the shorter courses with putters or super class discs when the ground was snowy or icy.

Just because you don't like beginner courses doesn't mean there's not a really big market for them. They're the ones that are accessible to the largest number of players, so they're the ones that it makes sense to install at schools or in neighborhood parks. Getting kids and beginners started on those courses and building our player base is a better way to convince cities to put in higher level courses anyway.

 

[1978]

So are you saying her choice should be 1. play the desired course layout against a field not desired or 2. play against the desired field on a course layout not desired?

I did not write what you "quoted" in post 110. You misquoted me.

 

[1978]

.

Paige clearly stated in one of her end of round interviews this year that she was annoyed they had to play from short tee pads. She wanted to play the Men's layout, now most of the woman's field would have struggled and played longer rounds...but I think she was echoing sentiment that the top women had...that they wanted to compete at the same level as the men.

She was also upset that they had inferior tee pads in the short positions.

Here is what I wrote.

 

[1978]

I lean towards yes, Easy Beaver seems more crowded than Angry the times I've been there but Angry is so long and wooded I might not be able to notice as many players.

Its Eager Beaver or the "Mule Trail"

 

[vslaugh]

So can we conclude that the OP is really J. Gary trolling to get people excited for 2015 Worlds ? Maybe we will get other threads complaining how Deer Lakes' teepads are terrible or that Moraine's Par 4s and Par 5s are no fun.

 

[chris deitzel]

most don't know in the Pittsburgh area that very little of the Moraine design was done by Gary. Holes 5-9 are the only ones he was really involved in.

Most of it was designed by Leo, Timmy, Bryan, KB and myself. Shame, none of these people ever get any credit for the design.

And I agree that short courses are awesome and needed.

Ever played Coachman Park in Florida. Best short course in the world and constantly has more players than Cliff Stephens just minutes away.

 

[HarkeyPuck]

But it goes to show that our area's best course had a lot of input from a lot of good disc golf minds. :clap: KB knows his stuff. I always like picking his mind whenever I get the chance.

 

[Crooow]

Another Vote In

I realize that everyone deals with adversity in different ways but I also have to disagree with the OP. Especially when I saw that he is near Grove City which is a fine little pitch-and-putt that any beginner should enjoy. I have only played Moraine 10-20 times but it seems like play for the short tees is not that difficult. Maybe it's the hiking around that is causing the "difficulty" but what do you want in western PA? I went to Paw Paw when I only had about 10 other courses under my belt and yes, I was overwhelmed. But in a good way - I thought "I can't wait until I'm good enough to play this without 7 throws on every hole". I have gone back there several times since and it's never easy but it's definitely easier. And I enjoy it.

 

[optidiscic]

Tough courses keep the beginners away

sometimes thats the point

 

[b-mart]

I enjoy a variety of course types. I do agree with the OP to a certain extent, but I don't really like it when courses put in easy am tees. Take Bud Pell for instance. The blues are murder, but they're a blast. The reds, on the other hand, are a joke. Hole 3 is a great example. The blue is around 1100' and goes slightly uphill and through some trees before coasting downhill to the pin. The red? Maybe 300' and wide open downhill... On the same fairway. Meaning that Pell has some stupid long walkouts on some of the red tees. This also means that more advanced players who are playing the blues often have to wait on the group in front of them to even get to their "special" tee. Newbs typically don't believe in course etiquette. Or is it noobs? However you spell it, they're rude. I prefer to keep the easier courses separate completely. It's nice to have a variety. Take the Seattle area for instance:

We have Ferguson Park in Snohomish. That was my first course. Longest hole? Maybe 200'. Then you graduate to Silver Lake, which is a tad longer. Then you have Howling Coyote and Mineral Springs which are shorter than Silver yet more technical. From there you graduate to NAD, Twin Firs, Terrace Creek, Kitsap Fairgrounds, and finally SeaTac, Bud Pell, and Shelton Springs. Looking at my own journey as a player, I like that I was able to "graduate" to tougher courses rather than just tougher tees. Even when I wasn't "ready" for a course (I still can't play the higher level courses anywhere close to par), I liked being able to get out and really challenge myself. Plus hitting a course like SeaTac as a low level intermediate player really improved my overall game.

I don't really think that beginners need to be playing on Worlds caliber courses. You don't take a beginning ball golfer to Pebble Beach. You take them to whatever municipal course is nearby. Let them fall in love with the sport first. Then they can go to Pebble Beach and remember how mediocre they are .

 

[wkelly42]

I don't really think that beginners need to be playing on Worlds caliber courses. You don't take a beginning ball golfer to Pebble Beach. You take them to whatever municipal course is nearby. Let them fall in love with the sport first. Then they can go to Pebble Beach and remember how mediocre they are .

I learned disc golf on a very short, very beginner-friendly course. Took two holes for me to card my first par, and 13 to card my first birdie. I played the heck out of that course while I was in town.

Got home and headed to the closest course, thinking I'd do the same thing. No birdies that day -- it's still a short course, but a LOT more challenging. The challenge is what keeps me playing -- I usually throw enough decent/great shots that I keep coming back, but the main attraction is the challenge. Beat my last round, beat my best score, etc. I love playing courses that are above my level, even though my scores are total garbage.

b-mart is right -- we need the munis. We need the 2.5 and 3 star courses so that people can learn the game. We need the short courses, but we don't need JUST the short courses. We need the big dogs, too.

 

[Royal Hill]

In many areas it can come to service levels.

Well served area, (well served means number of courses is higher than average relative to local region player base) - in these areas there is room for some courses to be multi level targeted, but there is also plenty of ability for some courses to fit targeted use. (different flavors of golf)

In an undeserved area there is some pressure for each course to be all things to all people.

I feel a wise regional club identifies which courses fit which use pattern best, and try not to make something it's not (out of guilt or pressure). It's ok to let the short woodsy course be short woodsy, and let the long beat down woodsy keep that unapologetic essence also. Each course can then be proud of what it is.

Word pictures: I think about a well served region having a pallate of options, like art colors, from which the players can choose to paint their golf experience. You don't want your colors muddied or mashed up, as they loose their essence.

Or how about an orchestra. All together they sound great, but if every instrument was a representation of the whole it'd be loud, but would be just one big melody, instead of harmonies.

And the last thing I'll add is the same as I've added several times before. "Playable" and "Scorable" are different attributes and shouldn't be mixed up. Playable is about physically complete-able and Scorable invokes judgement on how people will "feel" about their number.

 

[Curtis_Valk]

I did not write what you "quoted" in post 110. You misquoted me.

Sorry about that. I just hit the quote button, however had I previewed the post I may have caught that. The post that I quoted was vorpaljesus I believe but somehow it got messed up. I noticed that someone's quote of my post was messed up too.

 

[warobert]

So are you saying her choice should be 1. play the desired course layout against a field not desired or 2. play against the desired field on a course layout not desired?

Something to keep in mind is that most players have no sense of what tees provide the best competition for the skill level of their division. Tees that are appropriate for the 1000+ rated men aren't going to be the ones that do the best job of separating scores for the 900-950 rated top women. It's not sexism to provide them with the best opportunity to have the course accurately separate them by score just because they don't understand the rationale behind it. It's the same with divisions like intermediate wanting to play long tees designed for blue or gold level players, it might seem like the most fun but it's not the best competitive challenge.

I agree with Mashnut on this but I think Paige has a bit of a self motivated viewpoint on this particular issue. Let me lay out my argument.

It is proven that the top women in this sport do not drive as far, on average, as top men and this shows up in their scores and ratings. Paige has a definite distance advantage on a lot of the open women division so it would be expected for her to be advocating for women to play longer layouts. It plays to her strengths and would give her an edge on the field.

So I would say that this men and women being equal in society is a great movement that I fully support; but empirical evidence suggests that in terms of driving distance and overall scoring ability in disc golf, they are less capable than males. This leads me to conclude that while Paige herself would benefit from increasing the average length of holes played by open women, open women as a group would not benefit from the decrease in ability of holes to score separate and therefore allow the best overall player to win instead of the longest average driver (Paige)

Primo example of this in action is the PGA tour. Ball golf is a great sport where women are at a physical disadvantage like in disc golf. Women are allowed to compete and play on the Tour but women are physically unable to compete at that level of play and consequently extremely few have ever qualified, let alone been in contention to win an event.

Sorry for getting so far off the original topic, but the everybody should play the same layouts as everyone else and are being treated unfairly argument gets trotted out

 

[DavidSauls]

Sometimes optimal scoring spread isn't everything. As an old weak player, there have been courses where I was put on shorter tees and felt shortchanged out of playing the "full course". I figure there will still be sufficient scoring spread to determine a winner.

Of course, sometimes I've been grateful to be relieved of having to play the "full course".

 

[sillybizz]

Most "Rec" players in ball golf usually shoot around 20-30 over par and it doesn't seem to ruin that sport.

Right because the two sports are exactly the same.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That fact that ball golf is struggling and doing things to make their game play faster, less expensive and easier with shorter sets of tees and larger holes (foot golf) might be instructive for DG to not stray too far from the rec versions of DG courses likely more popular and fun for rec players.

 

[Jukeshoe]

BAH! ^

Give us adventure golf or give us death! :|

 

[Cgkdisc]

Original White forever! (at Lemon)

 

[bobmcnelly]

Right because the two sports are exactly the same.

The scoring system is, and that's what the OP had the problem with.