"NAGS" Zone

[Cgkdisc]

Realize that DGA is in a tough position to change as "keeper of the flame" for the founder of the sport and his original basket design that is still not too far from his newer models that are still played today in Championships.

 

[JR]

Turso i definitely recommend playing in Disc Golf Terminalen in Skellefteå, Sweden if you can play the Scandinavian Open layout. One of the course designers Tomas Ekström made great points of challenging the players to become better by demanding hole design omitting OB. If you throw into rough you can't get out with an OB stroke and not gaining skills having to get out of trouble.

I really love the idea that you are faced with more risk and less reward and that the thinking player gains an advantage with proper thought over a great thrower that makes a mistake in analysis. And in the long term it's great to learn get out of trouble shots having to throw from nightmare places. That forces you to develop a large arsenal of trick shots. All for the good of becoming a more skilled player in both mental and physical execution of a competition. Not just a practice round.

 

[osbogosley1]

At my course this discussion means nothing. A 100 to 150 ft wide open shot is definitely a golf shot because of the wind factor. The north end of the course is a wide open field, so a 750 ft hole makes for a good par 4. More power to ya if you can throw 2- 400 ft shots and be close to the basket. There are only 2 or 3 holes where this might happen. I've seen whole courses where a long thrower designed 430 ft holes that fit his game. Made for boring golf. The concept of mimicking ball golf with par 4 and par 5 is flawed when it comes to discs. If a fairway driver automatically went higher and shorter it would be like a 3 wood or 5 wood, but they don't, so. The best holes for disc golf will always be par 3's. I only put one par 4 on my course. I have never agreed with Houck on his punishing design philosophy. When the obvious smart play is a 200 ft safe throw with a putter off the tee, no one will switch to that channel again. Courses should encourage you to get the most out of the wonderful new discs that will fly in many different ways, why carry a bag with 25 discs. The shortest hole I designed is 240 ft. tight alley throw. Another hole is the opposite of the punishing hole. Its 320 open with a tennis court fence 10 ft behind the basket. Again, its windy here. How often do you get the chance to fire a line drive from 70 ft and smack the chains. I've asked Houck for years whats wrong with fun? One other thing, there is no OB on my course. Yellow ropes make the game look like a nerd game. Good luck getting that on TV.

 

[Jesse B 707]

Lauding a course with a fence 10 feet behind a basket isn't the best way to convince folks that this brand of "fun" course is better than a Houck design.

 

[the_lung]

Oh, and since we are on the topic of the "NAGS" zone. I think the simplest way to describe it is to imagine a wide open hole that is 60' further than your max distance shot. Think about how boring a hole that would be for you. Unless you make a colossal mistake, you will be taking a 3 on the hole almost all the time. To run the upshot is really risking taking a bogie and not a smart decision.

This is one reason why I feel many people feel that Phil Moore is the weakest of the courses used for the Bowling Green Amateur Championships. It has some, not many, but some holes that are par 3s but out of reach for almost all AMs. This does not create good scoring separation. I would almost like to see more artificial OB used at Phil Moore with the OB tightening as you get closer to the green rather than opening up. This would create more of a risk for the few players who do run the 400'+ holes without the accuracy to place their shot. It would also create a better scoring separation.

^ This.

Whiz hits the nail on the head, and as someone who has worked scoring at multiple PDGA National Tour Events and every PDGA Pro Worlds since 2007, I can attest that the concept of NAGS and scoring separation is still completely foreign to many, many folks and even at our highest levels. When the scorecards come in for the Open & Masters divisions, it's often card after card with nothing but 3s for all four competitors on these tweener par 3 holes. Or 4s on tweener par four holes. Etc. And when you get a course with, for example, 6-10 tweener holes out of the 18 holes...it just defeats the purpose of competition in the first place.

And then you have the holes which are fine for Open & Masters, but have NAGS zones and are tweeners for Open Women, Masters Women and Senior Grandmasters divisions. But because of the potential for bruised egos, these divisions don't want to play different tees than the Open players, even though they are completely inappropriate and result in terrible scoring separations. But that is another topic altogether.

 

[whiz]

Thank you.

 

[Disc Golf Live1]

And then you have the holes which are fine for Open & Masters, but have NAGS zones and are tweeners for Open Women, Masters Women and Senior Grandmasters divisions. But because of the potential for bruised egos, these divisions don't want to play different tees than the Open players, even though they are completely inappropriate and result in terrible scoring separations. But that is another topic altogether.

Good point, Lung. "Same layout" practices at tournaments are not at all conducive to better competition. Beyond the scoring concerns, this issue also results in pace-of-play issues and, I think, can keep newer players from becoming active tourney players.

 

[Guurn]

I think a few of the fundamental arguements for the NAGS thing in tourneys are flawed if you want to create separation. Lets say the average advanced player drives around the 400' mark. In a large tourney you play 3 different courses, all 3 which are intended to meet the no nags zone. If you had instead had the 3rd round at a place that rewarded people that didn't fit in that profile you would create more seraration not less. People that putt well and people that have incredible upshots are rewarded on almost every hole, people that drive above average are only rewarded on holes built for them. It makes perfet sense, if your goal is to create separation to make quite a few holes for them. We really want the winner of tourneys to be people that are good at all aspects including driving for distance.

Personally I don't think the throwing distance thing fits a bell shaped curve when divided by division.

 

[whiz]

Torg, could you explain a bit more about what you mean by "the 3rd round at a place the rewarded people that didn't fit in that profile"?

 

[Guurn]

Yah, that doesn't work very well. I am just talking about holes that reward people that can outdrive their counterparts. Lets make an imaginary Advanced level tourney. One with a round at BRP, a fairly balanced course for them even by the nags standard (not entirely though), Kaposia, more of a line shapers course, and again at Kaposia. If they 3rd round had been at HSSA there would have been a different type of challenge. One that rewards long drivers. You can't avoid having holes that reward great putters. You can avoid to some extent avoid holes for midrange specialists but no course does it. Many courses avoid rewarding people that drive for distance entirely. Yeah, this probably needs to be expanded on more but I think you can put it in the context of an advanced player. If most drive for x then etc.