Multiple pins - why?/why not?

[Cgkdisc]

I think my issue was with you saying that "most holes" should be able to be played for birdies.

What defines "most holes"?

If I'm not shooting-12 a round or close to it then I need to play an easier course or layout?

There are a couple of courses in my area where I've shot -10 to -14 under. I think I even went-16 once. You seem to be saying these courses are the ones that fit my skill set or ability level but I find these courses boring and lacking challenge. I would much rather play a course where shooting just under par is a challenge than play a course where shooting well under par is readily achievable.

In theory, every hole should be reachable with good throws in regulation (1 throw-par3, 2 throws-par 4) when you're playing a layout for your skill level. Doesn't mean they should be so easy that they're automatic birdies. The holes still need to be challenging more than just accurate length and ideally several holes should have bogey potential lurking along the fairways versus simply missing a par putt. The overall point being that layouts for your skill level should provide the potential for you to shoot under par but not necessarily far below nor even under par every round.

 

[gwsmallwood]

I think it very much depends on the course. If it's a 9-hole, then having two pins per hole to make an 18 is nice. If it's an 18-hole, then I'm good with multiple pin locations, but I prefer only one basket in place at any given time. I really like how Morley Field in San Diego does it. They have like 6 different pin placements per hole on an 18-hole course. Only one basket in place per hole, but they update them once a week. So you can basically play a different layout there every week of the year. I just don't like having to figure out which basket to use when there are multiple options at once.

Any time there are multiple baskets in play, a good UDisc steward is always helpful. We have one course nearby that has default layouts setup for basket locations that I've never seen actually used in the year I've been playing. Luckily that course has smart layouts enabled, but it would be nice if they weren't necessary.

 

[ray1970]

The overall point being that layouts for your skill level should provide the potential for you to shoot under par but not necessarily far below nor even under par every round.

I'll agree with this. Also, most of the courses I play give me the potential to shoot below par if I'm playing well. I wouldn't necessarily say that "most holes" on those courses are potential birdies for me though.

 

[Steve West]

In theory, every hole should be reachable with good throws in regulation ...

I'd qualify that a bit. I would say with "unusually good throws", or "exceptionally", or at least "better-than-average". Birdies should be possible, but not expected nor common.

In math terms, each throw should have at least a 3%, but less than a 23%, chance of contributing to a birdie. Which is 10% to 45% birdies on a par 3.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'd qualify that a bit. I would say with "unusually good throws", or "exceptionally", or at least "better-than-average". Birdies should be possible, but not expected nor common.

In math terms, each throw should have at least a 3%, but less than a 23%, chance of contributing to a birdie. Which is 10% to 45% birdies on a par 3.

The game of "Golf" as defined by ball golf design has every green reachable in regulation for the intended player skill/distance level, so a potential birdie is possible by holing your putt. Every hole.

Disc golf has typically considered every length acceptable for a skill level. Just set the par accordingly. However, following golf guidelines, only a specific range of lengths for par 3s, jumping to a longer range of lengths for par 4s, and jumping to an even longer range of lengths for par 5s for a skill/distance level will provide birdie opportunities. There are length ranges between those par 3/par 4 and par 4/par 5 holes which will not be birdieable for a specific player skill/distance level.

There's nothing radical in thinking all holes should be reasonably birdieable as it is a fundamental precept in ball golf design. What may be unsettling is the perception many players have that every hole length can be "good" for your skill level as long as you set par properly. The game is truly more about the potential to score (birdie) for your skill/distance level on every hole than it is to shoot par on every hole.

For designers creating a layout for a skill/distance level, determine the proper distance ranges so players of that skill/distance levels can reach your par 3, par 4 and par 5 holes in regulation and make them interesting to play. It's a simple concept but always a challenge to execute in the field.

 

[ray1970]

Whew. Lucky for me disc golf and ball golf are totally different sports.

 

[DavidSauls]

If birdies are the key to happiness, then a single-tee course can just set different pars for different skill levels.

I can't speak for anyone else, but fate has me often playing a course on which I can't birdie some holes. Or, at least, can no longer do so. My personal par on those holes is a stroke or two higher than the set blue-level pars.

But those holes are still fun to play. They fulfill my first definition of a good hole, which is one which I stand on the tee uncertain what score I will get, with that uncertainty based primarily on skill and decisions, not luck.

Sure, a relatively open hole that's challenging for longer-throwers, may be a boring par for me. Most of the holes I play, don't fall in that category. But even where they do, skill level doesn't exactly coincide with distance; I often play with someone with almost my exact rating, who can throw at least 100' further than I do.

 

[Steve West]

The game of "Golf" as defined by ball golf design has every green reachable in regulation for the intended player skill/distance level, so a potential birdie is possible by holing your putt. Every hole.
…

Lots of points to address. I didn't quote all you said on all of them.
_____________

I don't know anyone who thinks proper par is the only measure of what makes a hole good. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
_________

You say disc golf is all about getting birdies, but more fundamentally, disc golf is about scoring better than your opponents. Thus, holes that do not offer a chance to birdie can still offer a chance to "score" if that means getting ahead of the field. Avoiding a bogey is mathematically equivalent to getting a birdie.

Getting ahead of the competition is the game, not scoring lower than a particular number.
___________

"Potentially possible" is not the same as expected. It should take better-than-average throws to get birdie.

For golf, in order to get that birdie by making a putt, either it was a better-than-average putt or there was a better than average shot to place the ball near the cup.
__________

I doubt every golf hole is perfectly designed, but let's pretend they are.

Perhaps golf has limited their designs so that there are no holes which are not birdieable. That doesn't mean we need to. Golf also limits their hole designs so that there is almost never a need to shape a shot, or go to a knee to take a stance, or putt over or around an obstacle. Our game may be better because we offer more variety, and that may include the variety of facing the different psychological challenge of some un-birdieable holes.

Also, it may be easier for golf to create holes of the right range because golf stroke distances are not as varied as disc golf throw distances. (Not to mention the generally boring nature of their holes.) In disc golf, the length of the hole only explains one-third of the variation in scores among different holes.

I've run the numbers to see if such gaps (bad distances to avoid) are possible to find in disc golf. It's pretty obvious that hole length alone is too crude of a measure; lots of holes that are difficult on the short end of the gap overlap with holes that are easy at the long end of the gap.

There may be some gaps based on average score. Look for a paper. If the gaps exist, they would eliminate a significant portion of the holes that have been used for MPO. (Which, I guess, could be a good thing or a bad thing.)

 

[Billipo]

I'm excited to see the recent discussion.

I have been a long time proponent of multiple pins (and using for years). As I have frequently stated permanent multiple pins are most useful for par 4's and 5s. Multiple tees help on the holes front end, but if you adjust those lengths to utilize the first landing zones the remainder of the hole stays the same. Additional appropriately marked pins can adjust the length as well as utilize some fear features (such as drop-offs, slopes, tricky foliage) which may not be appropriate for lesser skilled players but welcome for the seasoned vets.

In my multiple discussions on this subject, I can always see the comments of "players" versus "designers".

My discussion comes from creating courses appropriate for multiple skill levels where an individual player should just ignore the other configuration - Designer angle.

Players seem to view as course variety when they personally play the course with all variations being magically appropriate for their particular skills.

Loving the discussion!

 

[Countchunkula]

Lots of good discussion. I think both Chuck and David make really good points.

I tend to land on Chuck's side of the fence for a few reasons. I see his point about having good layouts for a wide range of skill levels maximizing the number of players/revenue. I love Northwoods Black, but next time I go back to Peoria it won't be my first stop because it's so far above my skill level. On the other hand, Maple Hill is my favorite course and part of that is due to the well executed 2 pin / 2 tee layout. I got to play skill level appropriate versions of the holes I saw pros play at VO and MSDGC (it's been a while) and had a blast.

I don't really agree with the point that having multiple overlaid layouts will speed play though. Sure, some of the lower skilled players will play the shorter layouts and reduce their amount of time on the course per round, but will it be a big enough % to move the needle. Not sure.
When I'm traveling and don't have time to play more than one round, I'm probably going to play the layout with the most interesting tee shots. Often that's long to long, even if it's way over my skill level. I'd rather get to play that huge downhill shot even if I'm going to struggle to get par than play the short tee that's halfway down the hill.
This kind of goes to David's point that it can be tough to find two excellent, skill level appropriate tee locations on exciting terrain.

 

[DavidSauls]

To be clear, I like multiple tees and pins. They give players choices and I, too, while traveling, have sometimes played each hole from the tee I liked best.

I just don't think it should be a standard, or expected. It works really well on some courses, not so well on others.

 

[Cgkdisc]

...I don't really agree with the point that having multiple overlaid layouts will speed play though. Sure, some of the lower skilled players will play the shorter layouts and reduce their amount of time on the course per round, but will it be a big enough % to move the needle. Not sure.

Agree that veteran players and younger males and their gfs will likely continue to play the longest layouts. There seems to be an underlying macho and socialization aspect, i.e., "I only play the long tees" perspective. However, where we have data, the shorter tee sets have become more popular with newer and older players because they have holes they can ace, especially for ace pots and CTP awards.

In our leagues where layouts rotate, even the top players come out to torch the short layouts with ace runs on almost every hole. For new recreational players if the course has multiple similar quality equipment options, they may go for the shortest option because they haven't yet been "tainted" by the old school "long tee is best" thinking. Families who have mostly limited their play to short 9-niners have thanked me with the conversion to 2&2 18 holes at North Valley where each family member plays their own layout.

When you hear the mantra, "Grow the Sport", sometimes it means they want more courses for their aspirational playing level, not birdie fest layouts for them that might still be fully challenging for recreational players and females. There are still few courses designed by females and when a shorter set of alternate tees are installed, many times they aren't the same quality as the longer set whether in materials, tee signs or benches. The implication is those who play the short tees are second class.

As a historical note, one of Steady Ed's design principles was to make the shorter tee set the best and the longer tee set for the longer throwers simple boards and markers. But we've all seen how that recommendation has mostly not been followed.

When I'm traveling and don't have time to play more than one round, I'm probably going to play the layout with the most interesting tee shots. Often that's long to long, even if it's way over my skill level. I'd rather get to play that huge downhill shot even if I'm going to struggle to get par than play the short tee that's halfway down the hill.
This kind of goes to David's point that it can be tough to find two excellent, skill level appropriate tee locations on exciting terrain.

Dan Doyle may have been one of the first designers to popularize installing a single tee and multiple baskets on big downhill holes on his skill hill layouts in New England. It solves the issue where installing a tee on a slope is not only expensive, but there may only be that one tee location that's even feasible and everyone gets to play the same big downhill shot to a basket in their range.

Pretty sure Countchunkula is familiar with Fairfield where we either did two tees or two baskets on a hole to produce two unique layouts including several holes in each loop that were independent of the other loop. We did it because we had a bunch of old baskets that were refurbed and it was cheaper to get two layouts this way rather than spend on additional tee pads. I think Hosfeld has done something similar where he has three baskets and one tee on some holes or even on whole courses in Florida. Fairfield has recently started adding another basket on the holes with two tees to gradually move up to 2 tees and baskets on each hole.

 

[Cgkdisc]

To be clear, I like multiple tees and pins. They give players choices and I, too, while traveling, have sometimes played each hole from the tee I liked best.

I just don't think it should be a standard, or expected. It works really well on some courses, not so well on others.

One good layout would still be the expected baseline not considered substandard. However, more layouts of the same quality would be objectively "better" and can earn bonus points for playability just like having a basic basket on each hole in good repair is the baseline but having PDGA Championship baskets (certain models) are seen as better by some players and reviewers. More good courses at a complex can also objectively add to a course's rating in terms of its likelihood of being added to a Wishlist.

 

[Countchunkula]

Agree that veteran players and younger males and their gfs will likely continue to play the longest layouts. There seems to be an underlying macho and socialization aspect, i.e., "I only play the long tees" perspective. However, where we have data, the shorter tee sets have become more popular with newer and older players because they have holes they can ace, especially for ace pots and CTP awards.

In our leagues where layouts rotate, even the top players come out to torch the short layouts with ace runs on almost every hole. For new recreational players if the course has multiple similar quality equipment options, they may go for the shortest option because they haven't yet been "tainted" by the old school "long tee is best" thinking. Families who have mostly limited their play to short 9-niners have thanked me with the conversion to 2&2 18 holes at North Valley where each family member plays their own layout.

When you hear the mantra, "Grow the Sport", sometimes it means they want more courses for their aspirational playing level, not birdie fest layouts for them that might still be fully challenging for recreational players and females. There are still few courses designed by females and when a shorter set of alternate tees are installed, many times they aren't the same quality as the longer set whether in materials, tee signs or benches. The implication is those who play the short tees are second class.

As a historical note, one of Steady Ed's design principles was to make the shorter tee set the best and the longer tee set for the longer throwers simple boards and markers. But we've all seen how that recommendation has mostly not been followed.

You're preaching to the choir here. When my family played Highbridge Blueberry, I played the longest layout, my boys played the shortest, and my wife played one of the intermediates. We got to play together but no one was stuck playing something too easy or too hard. Bravo. I just know I'm not representative of everyone.

I think the point about having equal quality equipment between layouts is huge. Until fairly recently*, I think all the Chicago area courses that had multiple tees only had one set concrete. 90%+ of players just played the concrete tees and many didn't even notice the naturals. In most cases, we had red/white/blue with only the whites concrete. League players might sometimes play the blues and no one played the reds. Again using Maple Hill as an example, both sets of tees have a quality surface and descriptive signage. Color coded flags at tees and baskets make it obvious where you need to go (even from a distance). No drop off in amenities by playing a shorter layout.



*As I get older, what I mean by recently has changed. This observation was probably accurate 10 years ago.

 

[Countchunkula]

Pretty sure Countchunkula is familiar with Fairfield where we either did two tees or two baskets on a hole to produce two unique layouts including several holes in each loop that were independent of the other loop. We did it because we had a bunch of old baskets that were refurbed and it was cheaper to get two layouts this way rather than spend on additional tee pads. I think Hosfeld has done something similar where he has three baskets and one tee on some holes or even on whole courses in Florida. Fairfield has recently started adding another basket on the holes with two tees to gradually move up to 2 tees and baskets on each hole.

I'm definitely familiar with Fairfield although it's been a few years since I played it. I don't get up to the north suburbs that often and many of those trips are "wasted" bagging crappy niners.

I played both the old (18 holes in an open field) and new layouts. It's hard to imagine a redesign being a bigger improvement. Original Fairfield was maybe a 1.5-2 disc course. Only distinction was having the longest hole in the state at the time. A lot of the improvement came from having additional land available across the creek, but I really liked the dual, partially-overlapping layouts both in concept and execution.

I wasn't aware that they were adding tees and baskets. Considering that there are more than 18 distinct hole footprints out there, it will be interesting to see how the different layouts get routed when all is said and done. Were you involved in designing those new tee and pin locations?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm definitely familiar with Fairfield although it's been a few years since I played it. I don't get up to the north suburbs that often and many of those trips are "wasted" bagging crappy niners.

I played both the old (18 holes in an open field) and new layouts. It's hard to imagine a redesign being a bigger improvement. Original Fairfield was maybe a 1.5-2 disc course. Only distinction was having the longest hole in the state at the time. A lot of the improvement came from having additional land available across the creek, but I really liked the dual, partially-overlapping layouts both in concept and execution.

I wasn't aware that they were adding tees and baskets. Considering that there are more than 18 distinct hole footprints out there, it will be interesting to see how the different layouts get routed when all is said and done. Were you involved in designing those new tee and pin locations?

Yes. Worked with local Tom McManus who helped execute them with help from the city. Some of them had been marked to be added in the future in the 2014 redesign map.

 

[Flashdrive]

One thing I noticed Chuck, was that at North Valley playing the Purple layout (short to short), because of the back and forth or zig-zag of the course, it also significantly reduced the amount of walking distance compared to the Blue layout. I'm guessing that was an unintended bonus being how much the design was based on the previous, but got me thinking that could be a useful in a future course design.
Compare that to Blueberry where you are basically walking the whole length regardless of the layout.

 

[johnrhouck]

I'd qualify that a bit. I would say with "unusually good throws", or "exceptionally", or at least "better-than-average" [to reach the pin].

Steve, are you saying that if I'm playing a course of 18 one-shot holes, and I'm not a big thrower, that I should have to throw 18 "exceptional" shots just to reach the green (however we define that)?

 

[Steve West]

Steve, are you saying that if I'm playing a course of 18 one-shot holes, and I'm not a big thrower, that I should have to throw 18 "exceptional" shots just to reach the green (however we define that)?

I don't use "green" or "reach" because those have never been defined. But, the most direct answer to this vague question would be: "Yes, if you want to score 18 under."

In the mindset of "all holes should be birdie-able", I would say you should have 18 chances to birdie with exceptional play.

Exceptional play could be a longer-than-expected drive, a more-accurate-than-expected drive, or an exceptionally long throw-in, or an unexpectedly good combination of drive and throw-in.

 

[jamespenn]

When I started, the course closest to my house was South Hills in South Lebanon Township PA so I just assumed the one tee, two basket system was normal. The second basket is often an entirely different strategy and shot as well. And I have to admit, that's what I prefer. Having a long and a short basket, and the ability to have a hybrid course, gives a course replay value and longevity. I always played the short baskets when I was a beginner and it was a challenge. Now I mostly play the long baskets and that's a challenge. UDisc also has several hybrid layouts that are all pretty good.

One tee to one basket courses are OK, but there's no variety. It's just the same strategy off the tee, every time. Lenni Lenape has 14 holes like that, with 4 holes having two baskets. Problem is, I'm not sure where they would put another tee or basket on most of the holes. That's probably why Lenni has never been rated as high as South Hills, even though both are in great condition all the time now.

Muddy Run, which is about 45 minutes away, has 1 basket and 2 tees. The tees are often miles apart so you have a totally different hole, but 2 baskets every hole is definitely doable there, there's tons of room. Faylor Lake has also been a 2-tee, 1 basket course although it looks like they are installing a second set of baskets (now they need to find a way to cut down on some of the long walks between holes).

Anyway, it really is critical that a course have multiple layouts, so that people can play a course that isn't going to make them quit disc golf. If I had to play some of the back tees at Faylor Lake, I'd never finish the course.