"Fun Factor" in hole design

[DavidSauls]

We've had a lot of discussions about how hole design relates to competitive play---scoring spread, fairness, the somewhat mathematical analysis of whether a hole is good or bad, viewed from how it affects scores in competition. And extended that to overall courses: their balance and variety of competitive hole designs.

As well as some discussion about the values of amenities and aesthetics in a course.

But not a lot about simply how much fun a hole is to throw. Or, sometimes, not.

Have you ever played a course that seemed well-designed, yet in the end, wasn't quite as satisfying as its quality might suggest?

Just kicking around in my head the relative value of the "fun factor" of holes. Holes where, generally the drive, sometimes the putt, are just a lot of fun to throw. The first that come to mind are big downhill "top of the world" shots, but of course there are others, holes that bring a little extra joy when you step up to the tee, for whatever reason.

And while I was kicking that around in my head, I thought I'd kick it towards you guys, too, with this post. Thoughts?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here's my background contribution on your excellent topic: Players vs Courses

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Thanks for starting this thread.

My initial thought was "novelty," but that's a cheap answer. There's way more to it than that, and it's definitely possible to over do novelty.

I'll have to think about it.

 

[DavidSauls]

Nice, Chuck. Though I'm thinking of fun as separate from challenge. Of course, everyone's taste and idea of fun are different.

But sometimes you see a holes that's reasonably short with a big elevation drop---many shots will make a run at the basket. It's fun to watch, and do; much for fun than an equally-aceable level hole. The scoring spread isn't much---lots of 2s or 3s---but it's fun.

I haven't played the hole in the chicken house, but I imagine it might have a fun factor, beyond what it would if a tornado removed the structure and just left it flat and straight.

Hampton Park, the former annual temp course in Charleston, SC, had a hole that teed between two massive live oak branches; over a cement pond with a 30' water fountain in the center, to the basket. I'm not sure what the scoring spread was, but it was a blast to throw.

I'm inclined to think a course can be forgiven for a couple of high-fun, poor-scoring spread holes. Of course, the best holes are both fun and competitive, but all holes can't be the best.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I enjoy holes that have some sort of contrast, like starting out in the woods, and forcing you to hit a window that open up into a more open approach area, or a tee that start in the open (or maybe woods on one side), that plays to a basket tucked away into the woods, such that even if someone has the distance to reach the green, its only rewarded if they can place it well enough to put out, and there's at least some harsh reality for cutting in too early or late.


I particularly like holes that combine a few different design elements. #18 at The Claytons comes to mind.
an elevated tee that has you splitting the uprights between two defining guardian trees, over a river to get to the landing area.

Basket is through the gap, over the river, on the left.... so RHBH fade is what you want on this shot.

 

[roggenb3]

To me, fun has a high correlation to risk, or risk vs reward.

Holes where I have the option to go for a big water (or OB) carry are unequaled on the fun factor scale. Dangerous greens and landing zones are a close second.

 

[drew2000]

I haven't played the hole in the chicken house, but I imagine it might have a fun factor, beyond what it would if a tornado removed the structure and just left it flat and straight.

The chicken coop hole at North Georgia Canopy Tours is a pretty fun hole just because of the uniqueness. It's not a difficult shot - a straight 330 from longs, 250 from shorts (from what I can remember) - but has a relatively low ceiling that is higher in the middle and you have to keep it within walls of the 40 or so feet wide building. It is possible to skip the top of the disc off the ceiling and it makes a weird air bounce flight too.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Holes with varying topography can also be fun. #17 at Mt Airy, with it's undulating fairway.

Also holes that basically have no appreciable net elevation change from tee to pin, but play over a ravine that becomes a real obstacle if you don't hit the gap.

(#15 at Highland Park:)

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Water caries with well-conceived "bail out" landing spots.

Flyboy #25: (385 ft)

Big arms get the big reward with a chance at an Ace or Birdie, but even noodle arms can hit the shorter landing spot up on the left, for a low percentage look at a birdie (but technically still there), much more likely par... but always a chance of hearing that sickening "sploosh."

Particularly fun because of the metal sign nailed to the tree just right of the tee that reads:

THINK

 

[MarkDSM]

For my fun, I consider the classic 200-250' straight, 90 degree to the left for 100-125' a must have. Good hucking hyzer and hard fader. Ideally in the middle of the back nine.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Posting about Flyboy's "THINK" sign reminded me of this little ditty:

Foundation Park Champ 18, #8

The blurb on the tree reads:

RIGHT NOW I'm in your head.

While novelty is in no way a substitute for good design, it can certainly enhance an already good hole. IMHO, fun is more about setting a mood/feel than "designing by the book" so to speak. There's no way you can stand on this tee, read that, look at the hole and not at least crack a smile.

Same with Flyboy's THINK sign. Novelty can make a challenging hole more fun, provided the hole is solid to begin with.

I'll give it a rest now. Just trying to provide concrete examples of holes that over the years, have struck me as being fun.

 

[Gblambert]

Hole 17 at the Dillo mini course is a fun hole with the basket directly on the other side of a pond. You can throw through the tunnel, but if you miss the basket you're looking at a long come back putt into the water if you miss. You can throw a big hyzer or thumber, but if you land in the pond it's a stroke and a putt for bogey back over the pond. Some players lay up short of the pond for an easy par, but that definitely dials back the fun factor a bit. The video below shows how much fun this hole can be when you're playing on a fun card.


https://www.facebook.com/flyingarmadillodiscgolf/videos/769455909897830/

 

[esdubya]

Fun is a pretty subjective thing. To me, it's mainly a combination of aesthetics, uniqueness and replay-ability of a given hole. Does this hole provide a thrill when you step up to the teepad? It's a feeling more than anything, so hard to nail down to one thing. And it may be different for different players.

FWIW I also think that "fun" is the #1 most important factor in reviews. (see: Flip City). Steady Ed said: "Whoever has the most fun, wins". For us course designers, should the mantra be "whoever designs fun to throw shots, wins"?

 

[biscoe]

Fun is a pretty subjective thing. To me, it's mainly a combination of aesthetics, uniqueness and replay-ability of a given hole. Does this hole provide a thrill when you step up to the teepad? It's a feeling more than anything, so hard to nail down to one thing. And it may be different for different players.

FWIW I also think that "fun" is the #1 most important factor in reviews. (see: Flip City). Steady Ed said: "Whoever has the most fun, wins". For us course designers, should the mantra be "whoever designs fun to throw shots, wins"?

I prefer- "Is it fun?, Is it fair?"

Striking the appropriate balance between the 2 is the challenge.

I also agree that fun is subjective and replay-ability is important in that respect. The chicken coop hole for instance was awesome the first time I played it but by the third time I came to think of it as the least interesting hole on a very good course.

 

[DavidSauls]

Fun is a pretty subjective thing. To me, it's mainly a combination of aesthetics, uniqueness and replay-ability of a given hole. Does this hole provide a thrill when you step up to the teepad? It's a feeling more than anything, so hard to nail down to one thing. And it may be different for different players.

It certainly is subjective.

I've heard a quote, attributed to Harold Duvall, though I can't verify it, to the effect that on a great hole, the player should step to the tee with a combination of anticipation and anxiety. I love that.

But I'm thinking here of holes that might have more anticipation than anxiety. As I said at the start, almost everyone loves "top of the world" throws---you could have one where 80% of the scores are 3s, and people would still love that throw.

 

[mrtho]

Yes, hucking one off a big drop can be fun. However, I tend to think of the course as a whole when I think about fun.

My league just put in a new course (playable but not finished) that I don't consider fun. It is a 18 hole 9 basket course where there are 3 sets of holes that feel like I just played this one from 100ft forward/backward of here. Now there are some challenging holes but it's mostly flat.

I know I'm spoiled but when there are 2 courses in town that give you a bit of everything (long open holes, water carry, wooded holes, several that use hills/terrain as obstacles, elevated baskets) then the fun factor of the new course doesn't compare.

I would rather play a full 18 holes on a course that I consider fun than play a boring course that only has a couple "fun holes".

 

[Lazerface]

For me excellent design = FUN, but if I had to pick a couple of factors that are independently fun I would say: elevated tees, extreme uphill shots, death putts, tunnel shots, sweet landscaping, water risk

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I prefer- "Is it fun?, Is it fair?"

Striking the appropriate balance between the 2 is the challenge.

I also agree that fun is subjective and replay-ability is important in that respect. The chicken coop hole for instance was awesome the first time I played it but by the third time I came to think of it as the least interesting hole on a very good course.

The chicken coop hole is a great example of novelty being the defining factor on a hole, rather than the design itself.

It's a cool hole to play once in a blue moon, but I could see it getting old fast if I was a local.

FWIW I also think that "fun" is the #1 most important factor in reviews. (see: Flip City). Steady Ed said: "Whoever has the most fun, wins". For us course designers, should the mantra be "whoever designs fun to throw shots, wins"?

Agreed. Fun is why Flip never gets boring.

 

[BrotherDave]

I'm just gonna co-sign everything Bogey said.

 

[zontar]

any hole I haven't aced, but have previously hit metal on. I'm always having fun stepping in the tee box on those...