"NAGS" Zone

[Pwingles]

@ chuck

What is your approach if any, to balancing gold level courses when designing them? For example are you actively making sure holes that finish righ left and center are somewhat equal? Same with distances on holes? I realize in some cases its gonna be detrimental to be too picky about it or maybe the course just doesnt offer that many options, but what steps if any do you take to try and make sure the course doesnt cater to one skillset more than another?

 

[kscustom]

I play a course in black Forrest just outside Colorado springs, co. Very wooded and most holes had landing areas and fairways but one hole think 14ish had multiple fairways off the tee then at about 300 you had no real shot. No roller no overhand, flick or backhand. The last 100 feet was throw it up and pray it makes it past the trees. NAGS. As far as I can remembers that's the only one

 

[Cgkdisc]

When doing the first design draft, I don't specifically pay attention to L-R-C shot balance. I'm more interested in overall routing and incorporating certain areas as well as possible. I naturally shift from thinking par 3, 4 or 5 as the next hole as I'm walking thru and planning. Certain areas lend themself to more than one routing from the standpoint that I can put a 3-hole loop in this area with two par 3s and one par 4 that could be routed left or right and the first hole could be the par 4 or the last hole a par 4. So in later drafts when I look more closely at shot balance, there might be one routing for the that 3-hole loop that makes more sense for balancing the overall L-R-C aspect of a course.

Something that also needs to be considered is that overall L-R-C balance doesn't necessarily mean equal lefts, right and center (straight) shots. I have a course called Lakewood Hills in the Twin Cities that is nicknamed Leftywood Hills due to the number of turns to the right. However, as lefties will tell you, just because a hole curves right, it doesn't mean it favors lefties. You'll find that many times a right turning hole actually favors RHBH turnover rather than a LHBH hyzer or RHFH curve. Just pointing that just going thru a course and totaling all of the left, right and straight shots might not tell you the "hole" story without looking closer at how those turns are done.

 

[Frank Delicious]

We have a course around here that was designed with the idea of 6 lefty holes (right turning), 6 neutral holes, and 6 rightly holes (left turning) in mind and it is a pretty average course. Some of the holes seem forced and the land could have been used better if the designers hadn't worried so much about making a "balanced" course.

 

[zj10021]

That is a pretty limited mentality when designing a course. The course has no chance. Design the course with what the land gives you and make holes that reward good shots rather than luck. If you get pissed because the hole favors a FH or lefty shot then go learn those throws.

 

[Pwingles]

Easy killer lol. Jk

I only wonder cuz i play jungle skins and safari golf quite a bit and i had noticed how easy it can be to "create" things that cater to ones strengths, obviously chuckster does this for a living and is very knowledgable and meticulous im sure when doing a project like that. In no way am i comparing me playing safari holes to chuck creating a gold level final 9 But it has its similarities and i was intrigued about any kind of process that goes into making stuff like that

 

[money 21]

i really like all the discusion about course design and think this may be where the next big advances in our sport happen. I love the mutiple tee lay outs at course which as a blue level player allows me to compete more straight up with gold level players when i can. lots of courses around here have mutiple pin placements but only one tee I wish we could switch this. mutiple tees for one pin.

i think most public courses should be designed for a blue level player.

I love challegne courses it is just alot of the time play with players rated 50 points or more higher then i am and they can reach holes i can't and by putting myself in the 70-125' with either my drive or second shot i can leave my self a drop in putt and at least attemp to make there birdie putt harder.

 

[rehder]

I still think one solution to NAGS is making the putting circle smaller. By using a basket such as the bullseye from gateway would force players to land it close to the basket. Getting it to within 30-25feet would no longer give you an 'easy' putt. To get an easy putt, you would then need to get it within 15feet. Actually this would not remove NAGS zones, but it would move them in closer to the basket.

 

[Working Stiff]

I still think one solution to NAGS is making the putting circle smaller. By using a basket such as the bullseye from gateway would force players to land it close to the basket. Getting it to within 30-25feet would no longer give you an 'easy' putt. To get an easy putt, you would then need to get it within 15feet. Actually this would not remove NAGS zones, but it would move them in closer to the basket.

Not really trying to dismiss the idea, but there are a lot of baskets in the ground at this point. It would be cost prohibitive to retrofit every basket out there with a smaller chain assembly. For better or worse, the basket we have is the basket we have.

 

[BrotherDave]

Wouldn't an easy solution for NAGS be to have a backstop of sorts (trees, hills, shrubs, etc) so that players can be more aggressive running it at the basket from 100-125' without having to worry about a big blow by if the green is wide open? Like I'm 125' out and my great drive has left me in position to where there is a row of cedars 30' behind the basket. Instead of taking the easy upshot and sure putt I can chance it a little by going at the basket a little harder and hoping the cedars keep me in putting range.

 

[rehder]

I still think one solution to NAGS is making the putting circle smaller. By using a basket such as the bullseye from gateway would force players to land it close to the basket. Getting it to within 30-25feet would no longer give you an 'easy' putt. To get an easy putt, you would then need to get it within 15feet. Actually this would not remove NAGS zones, but it would move them in closer to the basket.

Not really trying to dismiss the idea, but there are a lot of baskets in the ground at this point. It would be cost prohibitive to retrofit every basket out there with a smaller chain assembly. For better or worse, the basket we have is the basket we have.

Well..theres a couple of things to this. First of all, its more of a thought experiment to begin with, since I dont believe this idea has a whole lot of support.

But if we say that we wanted to do this, there are several options to make this feasible.
One scenario could be that these baskets would be used for the big tournaments to start off with. To create bigger seperation amongst the pros. Slowly you would use these baskets when installing new courses or replacing old ones.

And you could probably remove the outer set of chains and put them in together with the inner ring of chains. So the basket still catches decently.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Rather than go thru the hassle and expense to replace chain assemblies for smaller baskets, it would be much easier to simply require that pros use a large diameter disc at least Zephyr size for putting once you get inside 10m or maybe 15m. That change could occur as soon as the PDGA says the word. Only pros would have this larger putter requirement. It would be a legitimate way to differentiate between pro and am competition besides money/merch.

 

[Working Stiff]

Rather than go thru the hassle and expense to replace chain assemblies for smaller baskets, it would be much easier to simply require that pros use a large diameter disc at least Zephyr size for putting once you get inside 10m or maybe 15m. That change could occur as soon as the PDGA says the word. Only pros would have this larger putter requirement. It would be a legitimate way to differentiate between pro and am competition besides money/merch.

OK, I admit I'm stupid. What exactly would this accomplish?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It would make putting tougher in the same way a smaller target would do it. Putting needs to be about a half shot tougher at the pro level so par is closer to the ball golf ideal of "shots to the green plus 2." The additional bonus is that it could only be done for pros since putting isn't particularly easy for ams. And no equipment would need to be replaced.

 

[BrotherDave]

I'm not crazy about that idea. Seems like a cop out.

 

[jubuttib]

Yep, large diameter discs stick considerably worse than small diameter discs. If you want to be a real bastard you could force everyone to use something Zephyr diameter with a max weight of 120-130g. =)

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's only bastardly in relation to how easy putting is currently. But if it started that way... wait it did... then it wouldn't seem that way. Imagine if golf balls had been smaller than they are now for many years and then they decided to increase the diameter to the current bastardly size...

A recent sports example where this did happen is table tennis. The official diameter of the ball was increased to slow it down and players have adjusted accordingly.

 

[Pwingles]

people still use ping pong tables for ping pong ? i mean, besides asians?

 

[zj10021]

I wouldn't do PDGA events if I was forced to use a certain size disc on a certain shot

 

[jubuttib]

It's only bastardly in relation to how easy putting is currently. But if it started that way... wait it did... then it wouldn't seem that way. Imagine if golf balls had been smaller than they are now for many years and then they decided to increase the diameter to the current bastardly size...

A recent sports example where this did happen is table tennis. The official diameter of the ball was increased to slow it down and players have adjusted accordingly.

R&A rules used to allow the so-called British ball, which could be less than 1.62" in diameter. Nowadays the minimum is 1.68".