I see you got confused by c.a.miller's question to me of where I draw the line. So when I was talking about drawing the line I was referring to me, not the PDGA.
The PDGA's guidelines aren't bound in stone, so by the letter of their law they can't be contradicted. But the PDGA clearly intends to define a minimum distance for both a hole and a course with their choice of lengths.
More evidence that the PDGA doesn't define a course as 18 holes less than 50 feet in length can be found at the start of the PDGA Course Design Recommendations document:
"Design course with the potential for multiple configurations to serve not only beginners but players with advanced skills....Design a well balanced course with a wide range of hole lengths and a good mixture of holes requiring controlled left, right and straight throws."
Can the (extremely weak) argument be made that anything can still be defined as a course since there's no actual standards? Yes, that weak argument can be made...incorrrectly of course, pun intended.
Disc Golf Course Review is clearly the leader in cataloging, rating, and discussing disc golf courses. The PDGA's own database pales in comparison to DGCR. So to me, it's far more important how DGCReview defines a course. So for Rolling Hills Putting Labyrinth to still be listed on DGCReview as a permanent course rather than a practice area IS AN ABOMINATION.
Has Tim G really been given all the facts about the Labyrinth from BogeyNoMore? I sure hope not. I'd like to think Tim hasn't broken his own high standards by allowing the Labyrinth to be called a permanent course, and if Tim was given the full picture he'd do what's best for disc golf and fix the listing.
The PDGA's guidelines aren't bound in stone, so by the letter of their law they can't be contradicted. But the PDGA clearly intends to define a minimum distance for both a hole and a course with their choice of lengths.
More evidence that the PDGA doesn't define a course as 18 holes less than 50 feet in length can be found at the start of the PDGA Course Design Recommendations document:
"Design course with the potential for multiple configurations to serve not only beginners but players with advanced skills....Design a well balanced course with a wide range of hole lengths and a good mixture of holes requiring controlled left, right and straight throws."
Can the (extremely weak) argument be made that anything can still be defined as a course since there's no actual standards? Yes, that weak argument can be made...incorrrectly of course, pun intended.
Disc Golf Course Review is clearly the leader in cataloging, rating, and discussing disc golf courses. The PDGA's own database pales in comparison to DGCR. So to me, it's far more important how DGCReview defines a course. So for Rolling Hills Putting Labyrinth to still be listed on DGCReview as a permanent course rather than a practice area IS AN ABOMINATION.
Has Tim G really been given all the facts about the Labyrinth from BogeyNoMore? I sure hope not. I'd like to think Tim hasn't broken his own high standards by allowing the Labyrinth to be called a permanent course, and if Tim was given the full picture he'd do what's best for disc golf and fix the listing.
Last edited: