Hole Layout - Distance Question

[Doofenshmirtz]

I am designing a disc golf course on a golf course. The following hole will be an intended par 4, blue/white level. Tees will be movable so the distances can be adjusted, but, over mostly level ground, what should the approximate distance be to the intended landing area to make it reasonably reachable for this skill group (i.e., how long should the first throw segment be)?

The intended landing area is at the beginning of an elevation drop that should give most blue/white players the opportunity to reach the basket on their second shot (but maybe not?) if they want to go for it. For players who get past the intended landing area on their first shot, it will be a little easier to reach that basket. The red arrow at the point where the line bends is at the beginning of the slope, 345' from the basket with about 30 feet of elevation change downhill.

 

[The Mickstar]

So the second shot from the intended landing area is going to be 345' (with 30' elevation drop)? Is that also a water carry, I see?

 

[dmoore1998]

I would think for blue/white level...you wouldn't want throws to be assumed more than 300 feet.

 

[chevis]

I would think for blue/white level...you wouldn't want throws to be assumed more than 300 feet.

^this. especially over water. but a 15ft drop = -45ft, so i guess that 345ft landing zone is ok, but i would bet quite a few still hit the water.
i would go back somewhere between 325&375. more than that & the noodle arms won't like it (they might not like it anyway). with that slope it's going to be tough to have the landing zone be consistent; a good drive gets bonus distance (& a roller goes in the drink).
is right of the path going to be ob? is that another water hazard on the right of the path?

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

So the second shot from the intended landing area is going to be 345' (with 30' elevation drop)? Is that also a water carry, I see?

Yes, that is a water carry. The distance of the second shot will, of course, depend on the length of the first throw which is why I am mostly concerned about the distance from that 345'-to-basket point. I would like blue/white level players to have a reasonable chance to get close enough after their first throw to be able to make the water carry.

 

[ray1970]

Not sure I fully understand the question, but I would say from the tee to the "ideal" landing area should be roughly 300'. The guys who push 300-330 can hopefully be rewarded with a reasonable shot to the basket for a birdie look. Those guys that tee off and get 285' will have to decide if they want to lay up short of the water and play for the par or go for the hero shot.

 

[dmoore1998]

I do think it matters what the upper left of the aerial photograph looks like too. It's a big difference if I have the upper body of water continuing on significantly and so have to hit a smaller plot of land...vs that body of water also stopping knowing my approach shot doesn't have to be THAT accurate as long as I get the distance when it comes to potentially losing a disc.

 

[jeverett]

I generally like using the "CR Par" (Close Range Par) guidelines around drive distances, which suggest that a blue-level (950-rated) player will generally be accurate at up to 340ft. (and can potentially push beyond that, but with reduced accuracy), and a white-level player will generally be accurate at up to 300ft. (and again can potentially push beyond that, with reduced accuracy).

Players will certainly be able to exceed their normal drive distances due to the downhill slope, however accuracy is typically much worse along with the extra distance. i.e. Fairway (safety) widths need to be considerably wider with downhill throws than typical.

Looking at the map, the only aspect that kind-of concerns me is the lack of clearly-defined 'good' landing zones vs 'bad' landing zones. i.e. What is the difference between a good drive and a bad drive on this hole, other than how far can a player throw? Are trees on either edge ever likely to come into play? Basically, I'm wondering if the tee shot, based on that map, can test skills other than basically just distance (how far can a player throw?). Is there a way to perhaps move the tee or even add OB lines/areas such that there are actual fairway landing zones that players are trying to hit, rather than just trying to throw as far as they can?

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I would think for blue/white level...you wouldn't want throws to be assumed more than 300 feet.

That is interesting, most of the ~925 rated players that I know have no issue throwing drives over 350'. Of course, that isn't really what I asked and I guess I can see how making the intended landing area around 300 would help cater to the ~900 rated players.

Luckily the the tees will be natural and therefore movable so I can adjust as needed.

 

[Cgkdisc]

This looks like an open hole subject to varying wind speed and direction. So, you want to design for the shortest distance a typical white level player could throw into the wind if your goal is for most white and blue level players to be able to cross it following a good drive, especially if there's no way to safely play around it. The PDGA has guidelines for different skill levels pertaining to water crossings and doglegs to give you an idea of those distance ranges. I know this doesn't directly answer where to set your tee so players can reach the desired landing for their drive but it does provide an idea how far that should be from the front edge of the pond.

My preference when faced with these terrain features might be to design this par 4 as more of a technical (versus throwing distance advantage) hole which is trickier to do on ball golf tracks. Consider positioning the tee so that most white level players can reach the front edge of the pond and few blue level players can drive over the pond. This gives all players the challenge to adjust their power to park their drive just short of the pond.

Then, position the basket past the pond likely farther than your current plan so it's reachable by white level players if they drive within 25-30 feet of the pond. The total length of this hole may be shorter than what you had in mind for your original design idea but should still score as a technically challenging but reasonably birdieable par 4 in most conditions. Gold hole 18 at Fairfield has a design like this for the first two shots althoug it's a par 5.

 

[dmoore1998]

That is interesting, most of the ~925 rated players that I know have no issue throwing drives over 350'. Of course, that isn't really what I asked and I guess I can see how making the intended landing area around 300 would help cater to the ~900 rated players.

Luckily the the tees will be natural and therefore movable so I can adjust as needed.

When you say "blue/white" my thoughts kind of naturally go to the lower end of the spectrum to the point that those players "can" do the thing you're asking, and the better players will do it with less effort...as opposed to a mean-range of the players.

I'm also thinking hitting with 300' being not necessarily max distance, but a placement shot to hit the landing zone.

It probably also skews things that I know players in the 925 range who can throw over 400, and who can barely throw 300. I see this hole and my mind goes to "this is a placement hole, not a distance hole" because i can't imagine wanting to be on the severe downslope to throw my 2nd. My impression of your description is you want most people to have a decision to make here, which means giving those shorter-throwers a controlled drive they can still place...which I think even for someone who throws 350' means a more controlled 300' shot to the placement they desire rather than stretching out to where they're trying to throw far rather than accurately.

It just seems like that landing zone needs to be pretty easy to accurately hit if you want people to have real decisions a lot of the time during casual play to risk losing a disc in the water on a shot they likely don't have THAT much of (a super downhill throw with water so close to the basket).

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I generally like using the "CR Par" (Close Range Par) guidelines around drive distances, which suggest that a blue-level (950-rated) player will generally be accurate at up to 340ft. (and can potentially push beyond that, but with reduced accuracy), and a white-level player will generally be accurate at up to 300ft. (and again can potentially push beyond that, with reduced accuracy).

Players will certainly be able to exceed their normal drive distances due to the downhill slope, however accuracy is typically much worse along with the extra distance. i.e. Fairway (safety) widths need to be considerably wider with downhill throws than typical.

Looking at the map, the only aspect that kind-of concerns me is the lack of clearly-defined 'good' landing zones vs 'bad' landing zones. i.e. What is the difference between a good drive and a bad drive on this hole, other than how far can a player throw? Are trees on either edge ever likely to come into play? Basically, I'm wondering if the tee shot, based on that map, can test skills other than basically just distance (how far can a player throw?). Is there a way to perhaps move the tee or even add OB lines/areas such that there are actual fairway landing zones that players are trying to hit, rather than just trying to throw as far as they can?

I do intend to make the cart path and everything to the right of it OB on both sides of the water hazard. However, this is an open hole. The trees on either side of the fairway conform to the borders of private property that is not part of the golf course.

It is a little difficult to tell, but the water hazard is in a deeper trench than the sloped fairway with very steep slopes on both sides: these are roughly defined by a darker green grass color on either side of the water. There is little chance of stopping a disc that reaches that slope on the near side from getting to the water and there will be some risk even on the far side. So the approach should have some risk for the player who tries to get very close to the basket, which is just beyond that far slope. A layup will also, hopefully, bring into consideration just how close that player wants to get to the near slope.

I could shorten this hole to a par 3 and try make the player face the layup/go-for-it decision on the first throw, but my thought was to put that off until the second throw as there will be another, shorter hole for that type of par 3 on another area of the course. So a good throw will be a throw that gives the player the option to go for it and birdie (potentially). A bad throw will be one that does not and gets par (without a long throw in). I.e., distance (and staying in bounds, which shouldn't be to difficult) are the only difference between good and bad on the first throw.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That is interesting, most of the ~925 rated players that I know have no issue throwing drives over 350'. Of course, that isn't really what I asked and I guess I can see how making the intended landing area around 300 would help cater to the ~900 rated players.

Luckily the tees will be natural and therefore movable so I can adjust as needed.

The perception players have of how far they can safely throw at least 20 feet past the pond in different wind conditions after crossing a forced carry is more important than the laser distance. Go out there yourself and stand at different spots, even throw a few discs to test your perceptions until you think players are at a point where they will usually go for the crossing. Then, measure how far that is to 20 feet on the other side of the pond. You don't want to have a hole where say a third or more of the blue/white players will lay up even with a good drive to your desired landing area.

 

[dmoore1998]

You don't want to have a hole where say a third or more of the blue/white players will lay up even with a good drive to your desired landing area.

One of the potential problems I see with this hole might be that a bunch of players will WANT to play safe shots and lay up...but look at the severe downslope and realize they're likely going in the water no matter what they do.

That landing zone/severe downslope really limits how the hole can play I think.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Go out there yourself and stand at different spots, even throw a few discs to test your perceptions until you think players are at a point where they will usually go for the crossing. Then, measure how far that is to 20 feet on the other side of the pond. You don't want to have a hole where say a third or more of the blue/white players will lay up even with a good drive to your desired landing area.

That's true. I do plan to spend some time throwing there with some other players.

One of the potential problems I see with this hole might be that a bunch of players will WANT to play safe shots and lay up...but look at the severe downslope and realize they're likely going in the water no matter what they do.

That landing zone/severe downslope really limits how the hole can play I think.

It might be a little difficult to tell, but there is about 50 feet of relatively level ground before you get to the severe downslope to the water. I think it was a ladies tee box for the golf course. I'll definitely do some laying up and going over (and likely, throwing into the water), before placing the tee. I definitely want the layup to be available and be seen as relatively safely so.

I am starting to agree with accounting for a shorter distance for first throw for everyone's reasons here.

One of the things we do not currently have in this neck of the woods are holes with significant elevation change. Where there is this kind of elevation change, it is typically because of and near to water. I'd love to have just one long top-of-the-world type throw here, but every top is near a bottom . . . with water in it.

 

[ray1970]

More food for thought….

To add a little excitement maybe make your landing zone shorter but rope it off as an island surrounded by OB. Between sticking the island off the tee and crossing over the pond the hole could be a real score separator.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

More food for thought….

To add a little excitement maybe make your landing zone shorter but rope it off as an island surrounded by OB. Between sticking the island off the tee and crossing over the pond the hole could be a real score separator.

Generally, I wouldn't be opposed to this, but on this hole, the landing area and tee area have golf tees in between that are slightly elevated before a light sloping downwards toward the landing area. There would be no way for the players on the tee to be able to see the OB lines, even if flagged.

 

[jeverett]

Yes, that is a water carry. The distance of the second shot will, of course, depend on the length of the first throw which is why I am mostly concerned about the distance from that 345'-to-basket point. I would like blue/white level players to have a reasonable chance to get close enough after their first throw to be able to make the water carry.

The second throw I think does need some consideration too, as fairway 'drives' are going to be shorter than tee shots (potentially by up to 20%). Compared to tee throw distances, for example, the close range par guidelines suggest that a blue-level player may only be accurate at up to 270ft. for a fairway drive, and a white-level one only accurate at up to 240ft. Even with a downhill throw, that 345ft. second leg length might be a bit long, particularly with the water carry involved. What is the estimated distance to clear the water from the intended landing area?

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

The second throw I think does need some consideration too, as fairway 'drives' are going to be shorter than tee shots (potentially by up to 20%). Compared to tee throw distances, for example, the close range par guidelines suggest that a blue-level player may only be accurate at up to 270ft. for a fairway drive, and a white-level one only accurate at up to 240ft. Even with a downhill throw, that 345ft. second leg length might be a bit long, particularly with the water carry involved. What is the estimated distance to clear the water from the intended landing area?

Distance to near edge is about 185'. Distance to safely clear (beyond the severe upslope) is about 300. The distance to clear should be roughly equivalent to about 210, right? It should be reasonably easy to get past the danger with a mid. As to accuracy, as long as people can safely clear, and feel that they can do so if they get a good drive, I don't think I should worry about how close they can get to the basket, or should I?

 

[roblee]

Your description of the pond slopes & the proximity of the basket seems to increase the effective width of the pond by 30-40%. That would increase the probability of a penalty stroke significantly (& maybe losing a disc) regardless of the player level. If I was designing for Blue/White = Amateur, I'd consider that punitive. I'd probably move the basket forward then decide the tee location.