"NAGS" Zone

[money 21]

i guess i misunderstood i looked at having the easy upshot as the reward for the good drive. most of the courses i play are very wooded so get the open upshot is how you can score with out getting a birdie.

The other thing is that an easy upshot isn't nearly as good of a reward as an easy putt. I haven't read the article, but one issue I have with NAGS is that the reward for getting into that zone is pretty weak because you get two chances to make up for an error: the upshot and the putt. If you took the NAGS out of the hole then your only chance to redeem yourself is the putt. In other words, having a NAGS makes the shot before the NAGS easier because there's more margin of error before it costs you a stroke. With a NAGS the difference between a really good drive and an OK drive is almost nothing if you have any sort of approach game. Without the NAGS the difference between a really good drive and an OK drive is you having an 90%+ chance of making a putt and a <50% chance of making a putt.

this rewards good drivers which is fine but sucks for me. driving is the weakest part of my game. i am great at upshot and a solid putter but i don't have great distance. how i keep up with or bet players with a longer distance is by making drives that leave me easy upshot or putts. With that said wide open hole ar lame. some of the local course around here call for very technical drves and if you hit it you a left with a NAGS, but you have to make a great shot to get the nags.

 

[Frank Delicious]

Throwing a good drive shouldn't necessarily leave you an easy upshot on longer holes. It should leave you the opportunity to make a good upshot to the basket.

 

[garublador1]

some of the local course around here call for very technical drves and if you hit it you a left with a NAGS, but you have to make a great shot to get the nags.

But what if you only make a "good" drive rather than a great one? Do you definitely lose a stroke or do you just have a more difficult upshot? If it's just a more difficult upshot then someone with a "good" drive has two chances to save a stroke, the upshot and the putt. If a "great" drive left you with an easy putt rather than an easy upshot then a "great" drive would mean there's a much better chance of you gaining a stroke. So being left with a NAGS isn't near as good of a reward as being left with an easy putt.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Good - great - NAGS has to do with the skill level the hole is designed for and players of that skill level playing it. A "great" drive on a par 3 hole designed for your level would be within say 20 feet of the pin. A "good" drive is maybe 40-60 feet away where you might get a birdie. If you have a lower skill level than the hole design, getting within 40-60 feet is probably a "great" drive not a "good" drive.

If you can only get within say 70-125 feet (NAGS) of a par 3 hole after one throw or a par 4 hole after two throws, either you're not at the skill level the hole was designed for or the hole was improperly designed too long for your skill level. So if you find yourself landing in the NAGS range, either you screwed up your shot(s) if the hole was at your level, the hole was designed too long, or you had a really good throw for a player at a level lower than the hole design.

 

[money 21]

some of the local course around here call for very technical drves and if you hit it you a left with a NAGS, but you have to make a great shot to get the nags.

But what if you only make a "good" drive rather than a great one? Do you definitely lose a stroke or do you just have a more difficult upshot? If it's just a more difficult upshot then someone with a "good" drive has two chances to save a stroke, the upshot and the putt. If a "great" drive left you with an easy putt rather than an easy upshot then a "great" drive would mean there's a much better chance of you gaining a stroke. So being left with a NAGS isn't near as good of a reward as being left with an easy putt.

Here is one senreo. the hole is 340 up with the pin being ruffly 25' higher then the tee. off the tee you have to pick a gap between several oak and pine trees. At the 225' mark from the tee the trees open up and you are pretty open to the pin. coming off the tee you have to stay low. a great drive leaves withe a 50'or less putt, a good drive leaves you in the 100' range needing to go around a tree or two pretty easy upshot. bad drive (unless you make an amazing upshot) is looking bogue at least. the hardest line off the tee to hit is the one that leads to birdie. This is how alot of northwest courrse are laid out.

I just see putting yourself in a position, if you can't get a birdie, to have as many NAGS in a round as you can as good course management. again though i am not 990 rated player either.

 

[garublador1]

Here is one senreo. the hole is 340 up with the pin being ruffly 25' higher then the tee. off the tee you have to pick a gap between several oak and pine trees. At the 225' mark from the tee the trees open up and you are pretty open to the pin. coming off the tee you have to stay low. a great drive leaves withe a 50'or less putt, a good drive leaves you in the 100' range needing to go around a tree or two pretty easy upshot. bad drive (unless you make an amazing upshot) is looking bogue at least. the hardest line off the tee to hit is the one that leads to birdie. This is how alot of northwest courrse are laid out.

I just see putting yourself in a position, if you can't get a birdie, to have as many NAGS in a round as you can as good course management. again though i am not 990 rated player either.

Those holes sound like they're designed to force 2's on better players if they want to keep up rather than rewarding lucky shots for average players. If a bit of course management skills is all that's needed to get a 3 on every hole with one shot being a NAGS then the course isn't well suited (i.e. won't give a very good score distribution) to your skill level. In this case NAGS is a symptom rather than an actual problem.

Grandview Park here is like that for me. I don't have a shot at a 2 on quite a few holes, but I have a really good chance of a 3 with a NAGS. For better players they have to be nice and consistent to get 2 after 2 and the weaker players have to avoid bogies, but the OK players can easily get 3's on most holes just by leaving themselves a NAGS.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Doesn't sound like a very good hole from a length standpoint except maybe for Super Gold 1020+ players (par 3) or Rec players (par 4).

 

[DiscGolfTeeSigns.com]

AATCS

acronyms applied to common sense

 

[rehder]

Would it violate copyright laws if someone scanned the article into a pdf and distributed it on a message board for free?

Probably, most magazines write if its permissible or not to reprint stuff. (usually isnt)
Which is understandable, but the it would be nice if I could pay and buy a pdf to save on shipping costs

 

[money 21]

just reread the artical and think i understand it a little better but have a new question. When did getting a par become a bad thing? i played ball golf for years and was a A level player and par was good, birdie was great, eagle was f-cking awsome, and boogy was bad. the artical makes it seem like every hole should be birdie or die.

with that said the course they are designing looks amazing and i would love to play it. and yes i am one of the pestky technical guys.

 

[Frank Delicious]

Ball golf and disc golf are quite different when it comes to scoring.

 

[jubuttib]

Yep, everything in golf is harder, especially short game.

 

[Star Shark]

Yet another area where DGer's get spoiled. We expect birdies. A ball golf tourney the winner is typically between +5 and -10 overall. In DG it's more like -30 to -50. Hell, Feldberg came into the final hole at his world title at -100. I think it's partially because most courses are still par 3 courses where one can get in 2 range off the tee on most holes.

 

[money 21]

i see this scoring as bad for the sport. if most par 3 are expect birdies then the should be par 2. if birdie is the norm on a hole then the hole is to easy.

 

[jubuttib]

Yet another area where DGer's get spoiled. We expect birdies. A ball golf tourney the winner is typically between +5 and -10 overall.

The guys in the top 20 (aka the usual suspects) score an average of -2 or better through the whole year, which gives you a -8 for their average tournament score. Average play doesn't give you victory. The stats say that in 2011, the average winner on the PGA Tour scored around -14 overall, best being -24 and worst being -3. There were 8 tournaments where the winner scored less than 10 under par, and 6 where the winner scored 20 or more under par.

Majors are usually the ones where the scores stay low, on your average tourney where the courses and especially greens aren't made quite as difficult the scores get very low even in golf. Disc golf does still take the cake though.

 

[jubuttib]

i see this scoring as bad for the sport. if most par 3 are expect birdies then the should be par 2. if birdie is the norm on a hole then the hole is to easy.

Maybe, but I just don't like the idea of a birdie requiring a hole in one. Besides, it's the total throws that counts anyway.

 

[Star Shark]

i see this scoring as bad for the sport. if most par 3 are expect birdies then the should be par 2. if birdie is the norm on a hole then the hole is to easy.

Maybe, but I just don't like the idea of a birdie requiring a hole in one. Besides, it's the total throws that counts anyway.

Most courses were designed in a day when the Viper and Stingray were the long range drivers. Discs have evolved and so has the players' game in general. Technique has gotten tons better by just about everyone in the last decade or so. Because of this, modern players are lighting up the oldschool courses like they were miniature golf.

 

[curt1]

i see this scoring as bad for the sport. if most par 3 are expect birdies then the should be par 2. if birdie is the norm on a hole then the hole is to easy.

Yeah, the real point of this statement is more that most courses are poorly designed for today's game, not really advocating for par 2s on golf courses. Houck's overall point is that there shouldn't be holes on a golf course, where when you execute well there are mindless shots on any hole. Those just aren't that much fun. After living in Austin for a few years and playing several of Houck's courses, his design mindset is very obvious, and it becomes very clear that is right. Playing a course where you have to think on every single shot is very difficult after playing so many courses that aren't like that, but it is SO much more fun and rewarding.

 

[Frank Delicious]

Ball golf went through the same growing pains as technology started outpacing courses and has been slowly catching up as course designers started moving tees back, making the landing zone for drivers tighter and tighter and making greens faster and more difficult. The main way ball golf courses make their scoring tougher is the greens though. They make them very firm and very fast, cutting the grass lower than ever before. Every Masters when they interview players, they comment on how fast and tough the greens are. Disc golf doesn't really have the same option of making greens harder like that so what we can do is not make upshots on holes gimmies and make it take two tough shots to get that 10' putt.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There's an interesting dynamic between shooting way under and NAGS. You're likely to get one or the other depending on what level a course is designed for. In most cases, the longest public courses are and should be designed for blue level (under 975 rating) since very few players have skill above that level. A well designed blue level course would not have NAGS holes for blue players. When tournaments are held, unless the course can be tricked out with a temporary gold or super gold layout, the top players are going to torch the course shooting way under like Feldy's -100 at PW2008.

On the other hand, if a course is designed for gold level for daily play, there will be NAGS on many holes for the majority of players who are blue and lower level where they can only get within 70-125 feet. That's one argument for not building public and even private gold level courses unless you also have a shorter set of tees for blue or white level. Even top tier tournaments on gold courses will produce winners who shoot quite a bit under par because these "super gold" level players are a half step better than the gold level design parameters in the course. Houck and I have our super gold design parameters that we pull out when doing designs for final 9s at NTs and Worlds when asked to prepare those layouts. But that's one of the few times you're likely to see the super gold players not shoot as much under par.