-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
How much water is too much?
- Thread starter thirtydirtybirds
- Start date
biscoe
* Ace Member *
Get an experienced designer to come take a look at it. As you say, it is a unique property and you want to come up with a course which is both unique and makes the best use of the land/water. they can help you avoid "rookie mistakes" with just a walkthrough. Brad Lescaleet (unicedmeman on this site) is an experienced designer in your area.
in general i do not believe there is such a thing as "too many" water shots but for that to be the case there needs to be variety among the water shots.
in general i do not believe there is such a thing as "too many" water shots but for that to be the case there needs to be variety among the water shots.
^ This, exactly this. Can't overdue water, but having someone who has done a few courses help will keep you from falling into rookie course designer mistakes and provide you with insight that only experience can....
thirtydirtybirds
Double Eagle Member
Yeah I have a friend who has done a redesign on a course locally, he is very excited to help. I think the way to go is to pick a day, grab 2-3 portable baskets and just see what the best shots are. I'm lucky enough to be able to set up 2-3 holes, play them as much as I want and mark out what works.
I think my buddy knows brad, maybe I'll try to get both of them out when it's not 10* and windy to spend a day looking it over.
That said, the feedback so far has me leaning towards utilizing the unique terrain to give beginning players a fun time near and over short water, and the advanced player a bit of a mind game with longer water carries, and real risk reward holes with safe landing zones OR bigger more risky water carries.
Thanks for the input so far! Keep it coming. Once I get out there and start mapping it out a bit I'll start a full on build thread as this progresses.
I think my buddy knows brad, maybe I'll try to get both of them out when it's not 10* and windy to spend a day looking it over.
That said, the feedback so far has me leaning towards utilizing the unique terrain to give beginning players a fun time near and over short water, and the advanced player a bit of a mind game with longer water carries, and real risk reward holes with safe landing zones OR bigger more risky water carries.
Thanks for the input so far! Keep it coming. Once I get out there and start mapping it out a bit I'll start a full on build thread as this progresses.
Our relatively near, "crazy water holes" course (see link); which I helped to install; never did catch on. Though it says established in 2012, that's a misedit, during the redesign entry (evidently), as that course has been around for well more than a decade.
You will see, from the rating, that it's not a "well thought of" course. (Again, I'm not sure what happened to the orginal/now extinct course; (which does not show up, even under those settings), but it was not well regarded either. (Unfortunately, if there were ever pictures of the water holes, they no longer exist.)
I rather enjoyed the course; but, more than 1/2 of the original design was precarious water holes. I went with groups of better than 900 rated players and, in general, anywhere from two to five or more discs would be lost during each visit. Really, it was "too much" even for this level of player; and it never created a "local scene." (From my perspective, this was sort of a positive, as you always "had the course to yourself.")
The redesign took a number of the water holes out of play (unfortunately, it also took the best hole of the course out; and frankly, was not a well thought out redesign). Due to the land available and choice(s) of the new designer, the new holes were placed in areas that without perfect park maintenance; were not good choices.
So, my one experience of what it sounds like you're looking at (as this land was used to store vegetables for food processing...that's what the majority of the ponds original installation was about; and seems pretty similar to what you have); did not create a course that was very appreciated.
In fairness, the way this course was originally designed (which I did not have anything to do with; other than later "tweeks" of said design; during installation of tees), the way the course wrapped around the ponds, highly favored lefties; or forehand right handed players (which, of course, especially in earlier days, went against traditional design). ...and forced "pucker" holes for more than half the round.
You will see, from the rating, that it's not a "well thought of" course. (Again, I'm not sure what happened to the orginal/now extinct course; (which does not show up, even under those settings), but it was not well regarded either. (Unfortunately, if there were ever pictures of the water holes, they no longer exist.)
I rather enjoyed the course; but, more than 1/2 of the original design was precarious water holes. I went with groups of better than 900 rated players and, in general, anywhere from two to five or more discs would be lost during each visit. Really, it was "too much" even for this level of player; and it never created a "local scene." (From my perspective, this was sort of a positive, as you always "had the course to yourself.")
The redesign took a number of the water holes out of play (unfortunately, it also took the best hole of the course out; and frankly, was not a well thought out redesign). Due to the land available and choice(s) of the new designer, the new holes were placed in areas that without perfect park maintenance; were not good choices.
So, my one experience of what it sounds like you're looking at (as this land was used to store vegetables for food processing...that's what the majority of the ponds original installation was about; and seems pretty similar to what you have); did not create a course that was very appreciated.
In fairness, the way this course was originally designed (which I did not have anything to do with; other than later "tweeks" of said design; during installation of tees), the way the course wrapped around the ponds, highly favored lefties; or forehand right handed players (which, of course, especially in earlier days, went against traditional design). ...and forced "pucker" holes for more than half the round.
Last edited:
Again, I personally, rather enjoyed the course; but, in reality only went a couple of times a year. But, it was not favorably received; and were I looking at that same land with this knowledge, I would try to have quite a bit fewer, "fight to stay dry" holes in play.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
From the PDGA Course Design Guidelines:
"A player throwing from the shortest (or only) tee on a hole should not be "forced" to throw over water that is normally greater than 18" deep (50cm). Include a flight path (usually to the left) that allows a player to avoid throwing over deeper water. Any normally dry trenches, some occasionally filled with seasonal water under 18" deep, that are regularly in play should have appropriate paths down and out to be able to take a stance as needed and/or retrieve discs."
Separate from the usual penalty applied for landing in water, you might have a good chance to lose a disc. What other sport has elements in the game design where you might lose your main equipment during play? Losing a golf ball is nothing in comparison. If you had to throw your 3 wood or 5 iron in the water along with the ball as part of the penalty, then golf would be similar to losing a disc. But it's not.
In our DGCD designer docs, taking an OB penalty of any kind should ideally be no more than 1 in 20 (5%) of players of the skill level the route is designed for. If there's just one of those water holes in 18, it means you might lose a disc every 20 rounds. But it also means 1 of every 20 players at that skill level will lose a disc. And we know it will likely be more when you consider there will likely be more players of lower skill than higher skill playing that blue or white level, long tee layout.
Don't get me wrong. I like water from both aesthetic and psychological design standpoints. If I had the resources to do the types of things they do to build ball golf courses, I would create all kinds of water hazards like, ponds, puddles, creeks and fountains but with none deeper than say 10"-12" so discs were retrievable.
One way to make water hazards more palatable for rec players is what we've done at the IDGC on the Steady Ed course. Players playing the longer blue tees on water holes always have the option to take a penalty and start from the red tees making their third throw. Per Steady Ed's design philosophy which is echoed in the PDGA guideline I listed above, none of the fairways from the red tees cross water.
A new way to make OB/water hazards parallel to fairways more palatable if the disc lands OB is to give players the option to either move forward to the last point inbounds like the current rule or re-throw without penalty (but still counting the first throw). This is more fair for players whose natural throwing arc flies over the OB. By taking a re-throw, they don't have to mark maybe just a few feet in front of their lie with a penalty under the current rule.
"A player throwing from the shortest (or only) tee on a hole should not be "forced" to throw over water that is normally greater than 18" deep (50cm). Include a flight path (usually to the left) that allows a player to avoid throwing over deeper water. Any normally dry trenches, some occasionally filled with seasonal water under 18" deep, that are regularly in play should have appropriate paths down and out to be able to take a stance as needed and/or retrieve discs."
Separate from the usual penalty applied for landing in water, you might have a good chance to lose a disc. What other sport has elements in the game design where you might lose your main equipment during play? Losing a golf ball is nothing in comparison. If you had to throw your 3 wood or 5 iron in the water along with the ball as part of the penalty, then golf would be similar to losing a disc. But it's not.
In our DGCD designer docs, taking an OB penalty of any kind should ideally be no more than 1 in 20 (5%) of players of the skill level the route is designed for. If there's just one of those water holes in 18, it means you might lose a disc every 20 rounds. But it also means 1 of every 20 players at that skill level will lose a disc. And we know it will likely be more when you consider there will likely be more players of lower skill than higher skill playing that blue or white level, long tee layout.
Don't get me wrong. I like water from both aesthetic and psychological design standpoints. If I had the resources to do the types of things they do to build ball golf courses, I would create all kinds of water hazards like, ponds, puddles, creeks and fountains but with none deeper than say 10"-12" so discs were retrievable.
One way to make water hazards more palatable for rec players is what we've done at the IDGC on the Steady Ed course. Players playing the longer blue tees on water holes always have the option to take a penalty and start from the red tees making their third throw. Per Steady Ed's design philosophy which is echoed in the PDGA guideline I listed above, none of the fairways from the red tees cross water.
A new way to make OB/water hazards parallel to fairways more palatable if the disc lands OB is to give players the option to either move forward to the last point inbounds like the current rule or re-throw without penalty (but still counting the first throw). This is more fair for players whose natural throwing arc flies over the OB. By taking a re-throw, they don't have to mark maybe just a few feet in front of their lie with a penalty under the current rule.
i find water to be a very annoying element on DGCs. I cant think of 1 course ive played where the water hazards added to the value of play/course. Lost many good discs in the water thats for sure. Fun!
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The Valley 11 seems to be popular over the years and was the best hole of Am Worlds for scoring spread. But even it could be better if I could get the park guys to mow halfway up the hill once in a while and also remove some chunks of volunteer poplars along the water. And that's one of the issues with water holes. There's a good chance water holes are only going to get tougher over time when in a natural environment with minimal maintenance.
Big downhill throw right? Ive never minded holes like that which you dont have to throw over/at the water unless you're going for a big D drive. I was talking more like the ponds at BRP or a entire course like the ponds of linwood :gross:
Luther Britt in Lumberton, NC also has a ton of water in play and is generally well liked though I've never played it.
To me the two biggest factors to consider are a disc retrieval aspect that sisyphus alluded to and taking as much fluky, random bad luck out of play. What sisyphus said is a great idea and would go a long way towards repeat play. A stack of donated, used discs for players to borrow a handful of would be great also. If your course is any good, most locals probably build a bag around specifically playing it but it's the travelers and first timers you have to placate.
Water carries are the thing that everybody thinks of, naturally, avoid too long for the skill level in mind and always include a bail out option if you can (water and wind are often companions and headwind can make that doable water carry for some nigh impossible). But fluky rolls and skips off the green and into the drink is where water holes really grate on players' nerves IMO. Sticking a disc on a dime from any decent length is a skill that's difficult and rarely asked of by the vast majority of courses. So making sure your greens are large enough to safely skip onto and something to catch unlucky rolls from going into OB water should be a priority. I've always thought it would be neat to have an island hopping type hole where the smart play was to hit a sticky tree (like a cedar) and have it drop onto the island, repeat, until you reached the green. It isn't often that we play this game and have to aim for a target that's vertical instead of horizontal since we're usually trying to avoid things going vertically (trees, poles, etc). So basically you're gonna have to think really outside the box and help people new to the course think outside too (like tips on tee signs or something).
To me the two biggest factors to consider are a disc retrieval aspect that sisyphus alluded to and taking as much fluky, random bad luck out of play. What sisyphus said is a great idea and would go a long way towards repeat play. A stack of donated, used discs for players to borrow a handful of would be great also. If your course is any good, most locals probably build a bag around specifically playing it but it's the travelers and first timers you have to placate.
Water carries are the thing that everybody thinks of, naturally, avoid too long for the skill level in mind and always include a bail out option if you can (water and wind are often companions and headwind can make that doable water carry for some nigh impossible). But fluky rolls and skips off the green and into the drink is where water holes really grate on players' nerves IMO. Sticking a disc on a dime from any decent length is a skill that's difficult and rarely asked of by the vast majority of courses. So making sure your greens are large enough to safely skip onto and something to catch unlucky rolls from going into OB water should be a priority. I've always thought it would be neat to have an island hopping type hole where the smart play was to hit a sticky tree (like a cedar) and have it drop onto the island, repeat, until you reached the green. It isn't often that we play this game and have to aim for a target that's vertical instead of horizontal since we're usually trying to avoid things going vertically (trees, poles, etc). So basically you're gonna have to think really outside the box and help people new to the course think outside too (like tips on tee signs or something).
Water carries and disc-stealing water tend to be a matter of taste. Some love the excitement, some hate the hassle.
For myself, almost all of my favorite courses present opportunities to lose discs in ponds.
For myself, almost all of my favorite courses present opportunities to lose discs in ponds.
For those who are pro-water hazard.... What makes them so special? In the land of 10k lakes maybd i just dont see the appeal to some crap man made water features or some drainage ditches etc which are part of the course.
The added mosquito population at many of these wetland style courses also is a huge PITA plus being muddy and majorly impacted by precipitation levels at any given time. Flooded courses suck.
The added mosquito population at many of these wetland style courses also is a huge PITA plus being muddy and majorly impacted by precipitation levels at any given time. Flooded courses suck.
riltim
Eagle Member
I didn't see it mentioned; is this water safe to enter? If you have a lot of water carries I guarantee you are going to have people swimming for discs. If the water is not safe to enter you are opening up the land owner to liability with each water carry you add.
I can only speak for one of us.
O.B.---at least, well-designed O.B.---adds an element of strategy, dictating not just where the disc flies but where and how it must land. Particularly where you can fly over the O.B, or take the risk of throwing over it. There is an added excitement when a disc is in flight, in doubt as to whether it will make it.
Water O.B. in which a disc may be lost adds additional strategy and excitement. The strategy is in disc selection: Do you throw your best driver, which inherently has the best chance of a good throw but a terrible loss if you lose it, or default to a less-reliable driver, which is expendable but at the cost of a greater chance of a bad throw? Or the ultimate compromise: a floating disc.
Everyone's experience is different, as well as their taste. The courses I'm thinking of don't have mosquito problems, and aren't flood-prone.
An excellent point.
(If you can build long-handled rakes and leave them by the shore, and if the water isn't too choked with vegetation or obstacles, you can reduce this problem).
Reniger
* Ace Member *
Another note after playing my old home course back in the town I used to live in when I started playing 14 years ago...
I went out there on Friday to play a nostalgia round, and there's this one... damn... hole... Hole 6. Brutal. Only about 310', but the whole fairway is only about 10'-15' wide with tall trees on the right, water on the left, and it curves slightly left to right. While this shouldn't be that hard of a shot, I was ECSTATIC to get a 3 there on Friday. 310' should be a pretty easy birdie. I still have never birdied there. Turn over a bit too much, catch a tree. Hyzer out, you're swimming. The Goldie Locks hole is no fun. So, if water is in play, I enjoy the challenge, but there should be better margins of error.
Point being, I enjoy the challenge of water being in play, but there needs to be a decent sized flight and landing zone for players to have more options than throwing gentle 300 ft shots with a 15' max landing zone the whole flight with zero skip.
I'll stop ranting about that one annoyance hole. I still encourage a course on the aquatic fields. Simply stating it requires a bit more thought into design and planning.
I went out there on Friday to play a nostalgia round, and there's this one... damn... hole... Hole 6. Brutal. Only about 310', but the whole fairway is only about 10'-15' wide with tall trees on the right, water on the left, and it curves slightly left to right. While this shouldn't be that hard of a shot, I was ECSTATIC to get a 3 there on Friday. 310' should be a pretty easy birdie. I still have never birdied there. Turn over a bit too much, catch a tree. Hyzer out, you're swimming. The Goldie Locks hole is no fun. So, if water is in play, I enjoy the challenge, but there should be better margins of error.
Point being, I enjoy the challenge of water being in play, but there needs to be a decent sized flight and landing zone for players to have more options than throwing gentle 300 ft shots with a 15' max landing zone the whole flight with zero skip.
I'll stop ranting about that one annoyance hole. I still encourage a course on the aquatic fields. Simply stating it requires a bit more thought into design and planning.
I wouldn't say I'm pro-water hazard, I just prefer a well-done water hole over one with gold rope spaghetti OB or barbed wire fences or parking lots/ball fields/people's yards etc as hazards. It's more natural and does more to make you plan your shot than just an open field or scattered trees. Water with discs I can't retrieve or throw over or too many trees/branches that can too easily kick me into the water is an Opto Pain in Z A-SS though.
I don't mind playing a course with a lot of water if I'm prepared with plenty of throwaway discs, doubly so if there's a chance I can get them back eventually. If the OP designs this course so that you can comfortably play safe and sniff par without losing many discs and it's fun and rewarding to play then I'd welcome the variety into the DG course landscape.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
Has anyone ever tried using netting around water hazards? For instance you lay netting under water in trouble areas maybe spanning 15 or 20ft out from the bank, attaching it with a lift cable. Then at the end of the day use a truck or something to pull the net up... Probably more hassle than its worth but...
