Course Design - What's Good?

[Niven42]

I'm sure everyone has their opinions about what makes or doesn't make a course good. With that in mind (and not to prove one design better than another), what are some things that you look for when playing a new course? What features do you find exciting? For example, the things that I really enjoy when playing a course for the first time are:

1) Dramatic (but not drastic) changes in elevation.

2) Groomed fairways, like ball golf courses (but not quite).

3) Signage (i.e. hole number, yardage, par and overhead maps)


While some of the things I don't enjoy are:

1) Water hazards.

2) Dirt tees.

3) Thick brush.


With those things in mind, what would your ideal course have? What would your "wish list" look like?

 

[volklgirl]

What would your "wish list" look like?

Flip City!!

Great signage, good tee pads, variety, thinned rough.

 

[REDARMY]

variety.

but this is really too broad of a question to answer.

 

[XxInnovaxX]

water

trees

elevation

trees

square footage

good teeboxes

good signage

variety

good flow

and last of all TREES

 

[Dave242]

There are a lot of things, but when I really think about it, one of the main things that ups the exhilaration for me when standing on any tee pad is what I call "early trouble" - basically narrow fairway (or fairway gaps) in the first 50-100' of the fairway. By narrow I mean in the range 8-12' wide at 75-100'. It makes the pressure and anticipation when standing on the tee so much higher since you know that if you pure the gap you are in great shape, but it you miss you can basically count on an extra stroke being added to your score. The agony of missing is high, but so it the thrill of making a good throw.

Beauty, terrain, and things like that are great but it is the highs and the lows of the emotion that a given draws out of me that is the main thing that will draw me back again and again and again.

Not every hole should have early trouble, but my personal preference is that at least 10-12 of 18 have it.

 

[zud00]

My two favorite things about courses are variety and elevation changes.

 

[srm_520]

Variety is one of the reasons I loved Harry Myers so much - that and the fact that the signage, tees, and conditions made it so polished. I agree that thick underbrush sucks, but dense areas are okay if it makes the course better.

The one other factor is that the course needs one or two WOW holes. Holes that have something about them that take your breath away. Elevation, foliage, yardage, layout - something that makes you want to come back.

The one other factor is flow. For a course to be amazing it has to flow with the land and work from start to finish. It sucks to make treks when going to the next box.

IMO - Here's the best thread on design: http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3185

 

[BrotherDave]

For me there are generally two trains of thought.
1) "Naturalness" Does the course seamlessly flow with the topography, make use of elevation, natural obstacles (large stones, creeks, old growth trees, etc.). In other words, the course doesn't have the artificial characteristics of say a ball golf course. Everything that adds up to a course being beautiful.

2) Playability. Holes are diverse, require a variety of shots to score well, well balanced (i.e. doesn't favor big arms and vice versa). Signage, tees, and other luxuries. The biggest thing for a course to have IMO are holes that you can't execute generally the same shot over and over and score well (not repetitive). So in essence, everything that adds up to a course being fun.

A course that meets in between 1) and 2) is the ideal. In my experience, Buckhorn personifies scenario 1). Beautiful, but seemingly unfairly hard as crap. Castle Hayne on the other hand (scenario 2), while not blessed with great topography, makes up for it by being well designed and fun, at the same time, it is also hard as crap, but seemingly more fair.

I've never a perfect match b/w the two, but I haven't played a great deal of the heralded courses yet.

 

[biscoe]

harold duvall used to say you could sum up design in 2 questions- "is it fun?" and "is it fair?" (harold did castle hayne by the way)

when i design i try to go by two cliches- "safety first" and "variety is the spice of life".

many of the aspects mentioned in this thread i consider to be elements of the topography which dictate design rather than design per se. as a designer it's way easier to design a great course with elevation, water, varied thicknesses of foliage, etc. but design itself is really about making the best of what you have to work with which may or may not include those topographic features.

 

[Camgolfer]

I would say my wish list would be:

Dedicated space for DG, not just an afterthought for what to do with some left over land.
Lots of trees
Some water, but not on every hole, and not impossible for beginners to hit
Open shots
Some long downhill shots
A course that makes you feel like you are in nature.

 

[billnchristy]

I like the feeling of being in nature. I understand if a hole or two has to run near a busy road but it would be nice if it didn't.

Amenities for a first visit:

1) Visible tees, they do not need to be fancy doublewide trailer lot sized chunks of concrete but I want to see them. I came here to DG not to look around on the ground like a washed up metal detector guy on the beach.

2) Some kind of signs to tell me where to go. Obviously this depends on the course...if it is obvious I do not need signs.

3) I like signs showing the holes...just think its cool...a course map would be neat too.

4) Multiple tees on long holes or some kind of par adjustment. Yeah it's great you can throw 500' but if I have to 5 a 1400' hole I am going kill something. Max recreational distance should be around 650-700' and be a 5 (average 200' would get you there in 3-4 shots).

5) Some kind of challenge that uses the terrain. I understand every park cannot have huge grassy canyons and redwood forests with ponds and islands. Use whatcha got. If you have a ginormous field with one wooded oasis in the middle make a few holes work around it.

My closest park is a big open field with only 4 holes where trees are in play. It makes up for it (in a way) for having a total of 60' of elevation change and major wind conditions which vary every time you play...ok an open field is not the best locale, but it works out because it remains a constant, random challenge.

6) If I live close and play a lot I would like multiple pin positions that are changed monthlyish and randomly (ie not all A,B,C but a variety).

Things I don't want to see:

1) Crossing fairways
2) Tees where you end up practically aiming at each other (unless it is open enough to not be a problem).
3) Shots across active roads, walking trails if at all possible.

 

[BrotherDave]

harold duvall used to say you could sum up design in 2 questions- "is it fun?" and "is it fair?" (harold did castle hayne by the way)

when i design i try to go by two cliches- "safety first" and "variety is the spice of life".

many of the aspects mentioned in this thread i consider to be elements of the topography which dictate design rather than design per se. as a designer it's way easier to design a great course with elevation, water, varied thicknesses of foliage, etc. but design itself is really about making the best of what you have to work with which may or may not include those topographic features.

Duvall is a really good designer if Castle Hayne is any indication, he did Barnet park in Kinston, a really underrated course. Does anybody know of a way to search for all of a particular designer's courses?

 

[ERicJ]

Disc golf is a loooong way from ball golf, but this article was published recently containing Jack Nicklaus' thoughts on course fairness and challenging vs. punishing:

http://www.fanhouse.com/news/golf/nicklaus-wants-to-challenge-not-punish/510671

 

[Dave242]

It would be nice if we could change the challenge/fairness mix in DG as easily as in golf. Like this article points out, over the course of 1-2 weeks of not moving (or after a couple hours of mowing) they can totally change the mix.

Also, by changing the terrain of the greens the entire course can be changed. This of course is not a 2 week project, but it is not as permanent/drastic as the things DG has to do - like cutting down trees.

This article hits at the core of a discussion I tried (unsuccessfully) to get going about our courses in the "sport versus game" poll and the "design/review for competition purposes" thread.

 

[biscoe]

Duvall is a really good designer if Castle Hayne is any indication, he did Barnet park in Kinston, a really underrated course. Does anybody know of a way to search for all of a particular designer's courses?

i don't think there is any methodology for doing that anywhere. harold is probably my favorite designer (other than me of course ). others on his resume include winthrop gold and my personal favorite short course ever- earlewood in columbia, sc.

 

[Mando]

i don't think there is any methodology for doing that anywhere. harold is probably my favorite designer (other than me of course ). others on his resume include winthrop gold and my personal favorite short course ever- earlewood in columbia, sc.

I'm on the Duvall bandwagon as well.
Here are some other HD designs;
High Country (Ashe Park)
Rankin Lake
Tom Pooler

 

[drock2k1]

I am a big fan of water. It takes a lot of guts to throw a disc not knowing that it is going to come back. Part of that may be because of the course that I helped develop has a giant pond on it which many holes are around (gotta use what you got). Beyond that, I like trees and dog legs. Must have risk reward holes. Signage is nice along with nice tee pads.

Things I don't enjoy...
Poison Ivy (I know it's going to be there but seriously, do what you can)
Throwing over busy walkways
Long walks between tee stations