course design

[nohr]

I think people are throwing the distance idea under the bus to soon. If you have very little elevation/vegetation it makes sense to me to stretch the holes out.

What is the shortest/longest holes on the course right now?

What I am trying to say is that if you take a hole that is 250ft and change it to 350ft. Then you just changed it from an easily duceable hole to easily parable. How long you have to stretch it out depends on how big of arms you have in the area.

Some of the hardest holes that I have played have
1) Elevation Change
2) Tight Winding Fareways
3) Distance

I am thinking of several holes at highbridge. Up hill dog leg right 600feet through the woods. Doesn't that sound fun?

 

[Marmoset]

I agree that adding distance could make a hole more difficult. But an open 600' hole could still be easily 3ed by practically anyone. Two accurate 300' drives and a short putt. Boom, you just carded a 3.

In my course design I like to reward accuracy, not distance. Yes I have a couple of 600' holes but most of my holes are tight and scary; not long at all but still scary. I play off the risk/reward concept pretty heavily. I have a 120' hole that could easily be an ace (but its a really scary ace run because of heavy OB behind the basket), a risky 2, a safe 3, or can easily card a 4,5,6 or more because your risk did not pay off. The hole is easily reachable by anyone but a healthy mixture of skill and good course management will create the scoring spread, not the size of your cannon. I like even playing fields- anyone can throw 120', not everyone can throw 500'.

↑↑↑This is the type of difficulty I am hoping to add to my course. I am not aiming to find out who can park a 550' hole (although I did design a few holes where you can really rip 'em without significant consequences; those who rely on their big guns might need a recovery hole or two.)

 

[Marmoset]

I guess what I am trying to say is this:
2 people are playing DG, one of them maxes out at 300' but is accurate. The other maxes out at 600'.
They are playing a long course where every hole is 600' long. If the bigger armed guy has any resemblance of accuracy then he will spank the shorter guy. There would be absolutely no hope for the shorter armed guy if it takes him 2-3 strokes to get to the basket every time while his opponent could theoretically park any hole.

I don't want to design a course that could give a player with 1 strong skillset the ability to run away with the victory while the opponent, who has 10 strong skillsets but not "that 1," is floundering.

That's not fair.

I want to design a course that relies on:
1- abilities anyone can have like a good mental game or good course management.
2- accuracy; if you wna to know who throws the furthest then go to an open field and find out.
3- well rounded skillsets

That is my ideal but I fully realize that any course will favor certain aspects of the game while accidentally neglecting or de-valuing others.

 

[Gator]

I think people are throwing the distance idea under the bus to soon.

Just saying distance without quality only makes a course less enjoyable to play. Distance with quality equals something people will come from far and wide to play. I'd play a par 8 hole with a smile on my face if each shot I took was a challenge and added something interesting to the hole.