Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Headrick always approved of discrimination against rollers. However, I pointed out to him that rocks rolled before Rocs flew.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Penal Design
- Thread starter optidiscic
- Start date
warobert
Eagle Member
I usually see two kinds of hate against overhand shots on holes. The first is from people that have some unnatural hate for people that throw overhands and desires to hose people that rely on that shot at every opportunity. I don't really support people that modify holes for the first reason.
The second reason I see for modifying a hole to hate on the overhand shot are designers that never even considered the shot when designing their holes. I have seen guys lay out a hole that has well thought out risk / reward that is negated by a low risk, high reward overhand shot that the designer overlooked. I can see the use of a mando or other obstacle in this situation but would still give the designer grief for overlooking it in their design.
The second reason I see for modifying a hole to hate on the overhand shot are designers that never even considered the shot when designing their holes. I have seen guys lay out a hole that has well thought out risk / reward that is negated by a low risk, high reward overhand shot that the designer overlooked. I can see the use of a mando or other obstacle in this situation but would still give the designer grief for overlooking it in their design.
you may be sick...but you're also wise.
I think you are reading too much into my statement. I will comment on that, but first, I agree that as a designer I have limitations. I am willing to listen to input from people who communicate civilly and with a well thought out message. That is why I usually don't listen to top pro players when they rant at me!
Okay, enough of that. My take on thumbers (grenades etc.) is that they are legitimate disc golf shots. I do not find them as visually sttimulating as backhands or flicks, but that is a different issue. I have watched a lot of good/great thumber players circumvent the intended fairway on courses, including mine. They do this by going directly over trees that may not be fully mature or by taking shortcuts through the woods where there are high gaps in the canopy. It is the high gap shortcut through the canopy routes that prompted some of the mandos that I had instituted on a few courses. I simply wanted the thumber throwers to play the fairway rather than take shortcuts. I do take this into account while designing. My hope is that I can keep the risk/reward factor for all shots reasonably similar. This is not always possible, but it is a goal.
Bottom line:
I don't only wish to punish thumber throwers, I want to punish throwers of all shots equally.
Thumber
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,712
Bottom line:
I don't only wish to punish thumber throwers, I want to punish throwers of all shots equally.
My point exactly. I throw more than the average number of thumbers. It is boring if it is low risk, high reward (although useful when in need of a 2). But when its high risk, high reward, then things get super interesting. Sure I am not taking the "fairway" to get to the hole. But in a high risk shot, if i mess up I am likely in double scoop of poop trouble.
Got it
Fair enough, and good reply. That is a reasonable approach to me. I tend to only thumber those routes when I've already launched a crappy drive off the fairway. I was thinking that you were talking about intentionally designing holes to eliminate thumber lines within normal fairways. I'm in complete agreement with your theory. :clap:
I think you are reading too much into my statement. I will comment on that, but first, I agree that as a designer I have limitations. I am willing to listen to input from people who communicate civilly and with a well thought out message. That is why I usually don't listen to top pro players when they rant at me!
Okay, enough of that. My take on thumbers (grenades etc.) is that they are legitimate disc golf shots. I do not find them as visually sttimulating as backhands or flicks, but that is a different issue. I have watched a lot of good/great thumber players circumvent the intended fairway on courses, including mine. They do this by going directly over trees that may not be fully mature or by taking shortcuts through the woods where there are high gaps in the canopy. It is the high gap shortcut through the canopy routes that prompted some of the mandos that I had instituted on a few courses. I simply wanted the thumber throwers to play the fairway rather than take shortcuts. I do take this into account while designing. My hope is that I can keep the risk/reward factor for all shots reasonably similar. This is not always possible, but it is a goal.
Bottom line:
I don't only wish to punish thumber throwers, I want to punish throwers of all shots equally.
Fair enough, and good reply. That is a reasonable approach to me. I tend to only thumber those routes when I've already launched a crappy drive off the fairway. I was thinking that you were talking about intentionally designing holes to eliminate thumber lines within normal fairways. I'm in complete agreement with your theory. :clap:
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,233
Liar. He thumbs off the pad all the time...and he wins with it.
Stan was talking about thumbers that are off the fairway and sneaky routes up through the trees. I don't do those too often.
Hell yes I thumb off the tee pad when the shot dictates it. And I will keep throwing thumbers until my arm separates at the shoulder joint.
Hell yes I thumb off the tee pad when the shot dictates it. And I will keep throwing thumbers until my arm separates at the shoulder joint.
Thumber
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,712
Preach it Brother Slop!
I find that the only people that complain about thumbers are the people I beat using them. When I blow up and lose nobody cares that I threw 32 thumbers on that round. But mostly, people get a kick out of watching thumbers. They're like the new beer on the market. Everyone is set in their ways, and makes fun of its name or label. But once they try it they are usually pretty accepting.
I'd really love to see some good thumber players in action. I don't get to play with other people much do to the lack of courses... and interest... in my area. So seeing different kinds of shots on Youtube fascinates me... but it's not the same as seeing them in person. So have fun doing what you do.
Marmoset
* Ace Member *
After thinking about this topic for a little bit I really like the idea of the Knockamixon boulder fields that are just barely off the fairway; if you send an errant drive down the fairway, there's a very good chance you will land in, or get kicked into, one of these boulder fields. It is very easy to lose a disc here, you have no run-up ability, and your footing can be very unstable.
Similarly, I think the worst possible non-oob "penalty" would be a large swamp field that is still 300+ feet away from the basket. I'm talking about the boot sucking, peanut butter mud swamp. The idea of trudging through the mud and getting my shoes/socks/feet/legs dirty, the idea of having to clean off the really sloppy disc, the idea of possibly losing a shoe, and the idea of absolutely no run-up makes me cringe at the thought of landing in something like this. No penalties would be assessed but you can bet that I would be playing very far away from something like this. Can you imagine walking around the rest of the course with huge globs of mud hanging off of your feet? Bleccchhhh, no thanks!
I also like the holes that have really long, straight fairways and zillions of trees on either side. If you even touch one of the trees on the side, there's an excellent possibility that you will be pinballing deep into the woods. That one hole at Blue Ribbon Pines is probably the most famous example of this. There are also several variants found locally.
I like the idea that several have expressed previously; the idea of designing an undesirable landing spot that heavily restricts or eliminates the run-up. Boulder fields, sand traps, etc.
I once saw a tournament in Japan, not the Japan open. Because space is at a premium (tiny island, millions of people) the course was set up in an open field multi-use park. Everywhere you looked, all you ever saw was yellow tape, yellow tape, yellow tape. It was a nightmare to look at. There were no natural features so whatever… Just yellow tape describing fairways. It was all about placement shots and staying in-bounds. This had its own challenge because it was exceptionally windy and they are forced to use 150 g discs by law but all the beautiful things I associate with DG were missing. It was then that I realized how much I value the authenticity of playing around naturally found obstacles. When I say this I don't mean to imply that this is limited to only non-man made things, I have designed a course around my work building that I think is really fun; almost all the interesting bits come from man-made objects such as curbed islands in the parking lot. I like looking at the environment around me, in nature or otherwise, and noticing risk/reward elements. My course preference reflects this mentality because I like to play courses where I feel the designer nerded out about the existing details the way I do.
Having said all that, I do like well designed course additions such as the bamboo on Winthrop Gold 7. I have enjoyed watching the evolution of the structure.
Similarly, I think the worst possible non-oob "penalty" would be a large swamp field that is still 300+ feet away from the basket. I'm talking about the boot sucking, peanut butter mud swamp. The idea of trudging through the mud and getting my shoes/socks/feet/legs dirty, the idea of having to clean off the really sloppy disc, the idea of possibly losing a shoe, and the idea of absolutely no run-up makes me cringe at the thought of landing in something like this. No penalties would be assessed but you can bet that I would be playing very far away from something like this. Can you imagine walking around the rest of the course with huge globs of mud hanging off of your feet? Bleccchhhh, no thanks!
I also like the holes that have really long, straight fairways and zillions of trees on either side. If you even touch one of the trees on the side, there's an excellent possibility that you will be pinballing deep into the woods. That one hole at Blue Ribbon Pines is probably the most famous example of this. There are also several variants found locally.
I like the idea that several have expressed previously; the idea of designing an undesirable landing spot that heavily restricts or eliminates the run-up. Boulder fields, sand traps, etc.
I once saw a tournament in Japan, not the Japan open. Because space is at a premium (tiny island, millions of people) the course was set up in an open field multi-use park. Everywhere you looked, all you ever saw was yellow tape, yellow tape, yellow tape. It was a nightmare to look at. There were no natural features so whatever… Just yellow tape describing fairways. It was all about placement shots and staying in-bounds. This had its own challenge because it was exceptionally windy and they are forced to use 150 g discs by law but all the beautiful things I associate with DG were missing. It was then that I realized how much I value the authenticity of playing around naturally found obstacles. When I say this I don't mean to imply that this is limited to only non-man made things, I have designed a course around my work building that I think is really fun; almost all the interesting bits come from man-made objects such as curbed islands in the parking lot. I like looking at the environment around me, in nature or otherwise, and noticing risk/reward elements. My course preference reflects this mentality because I like to play courses where I feel the designer nerded out about the existing details the way I do.
Having said all that, I do like well designed course additions such as the bamboo on Winthrop Gold 7. I have enjoyed watching the evolution of the structure.
Highway Bill
Par Member
In reading through this thread, one thing is clear. Opinions on what's fair, what works, and what doesn't range from infrared to ultraviolet. What isn't always considered though when ranting negatively on the state of our sport is the fact that designers, for the most part, have always had to "make due" with what's in front of them.
When there's no (little) money involved and oftentimes less than ideal space for the project at hand…when hands are tied as to what can be cut and what can't, the result often falls short of the designers' initial hopes and dreams.
Like Stan mentioned earlier, if he had the means to shape land with some real equipment, if he could do what he really wanted to do….look the f*** out! I feel the exact same way. Indeed, when golf course designers get a load of what WE"RE doing in 5-10 years w/ design, surely they'll be green with envy.
When there's no (little) money involved and oftentimes less than ideal space for the project at hand…when hands are tied as to what can be cut and what can't, the result often falls short of the designers' initial hopes and dreams.
Like Stan mentioned earlier, if he had the means to shape land with some real equipment, if he could do what he really wanted to do….look the f*** out! I feel the exact same way. Indeed, when golf course designers get a load of what WE"RE doing in 5-10 years w/ design, surely they'll be green with envy.
I think what many are failing to factor in here is not only what land you have to work with, but what you are allowed to do to that land. Saying " we'll just plant a line of trees here" is nice, but it takes time for anything to grow in, and there are the mowing patterns to consider, and balancing difficulty with accessibility for ongoing maintenance is also a concern. If the mowers hit your terraces, or mow over your trees, then whether they can survive discers is moot.
In my opinion, OB needs to be clearly marked for it to be effective, ESPECIALLY if it is for safety reasons. If only locals know about a Mando and there's no signage, then it defeats the purpose for newbies who don't know the "unwritten rules". It needs to be clearly defined to be commonly accepted.
When I was living in Mexico in 2008, I played weekly rounds on the only course available: Parque Rufino Tamayo. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2467&mode=ci If you look at the hole info, you see that there are many 350ish par 4s, and that the distance seems pretty short overall. However, the course was nicknamed "El Castigador" (the punisher) by the locals because of the OB creekbed that cut through the park and the many OB walking paths the holes weaved between. The hilly terrain and the way the holes were designed, caused them to play very different as a result of the OB.
Hole #2 is a perfect example. 230 ft. you throw across the river, and the OB path beyond that, to the steep 15ft uphill that basket is on the level top of, with OB path 15ft beyond. Its a placement shot with a midrange to get it on the safe landing zone, but trying to run the basket means more risk of going long. It was a good hole, but without the OB, people would be easily laying up at the base of the hill, or bombing it past the basket and risking hitting walkers, so we needed OB for safety as well.
Hole #3 is only 203ft, but down a fairway bounded by a path on the left, that slopes down towards the river on the right, under the canopy of several mature trees. The open route is a ground skip off the path to left, and hope it stops before rolling down the hill, or you can shoot a midrange shot down either left or right side of fairway. Right side is more open, but also closer to the edge of dropoff down into creek bed, so more dangerous. fourth option is a spike hyzer over the creek, which was dangerous because of the bushes and trees that lined the bottom of creekbed. Never seen so many circle 4's on a 203ft hole, but it wasnt random, just a tough hole that forces you to think about landing a shot that wont roll down the hill.
The OB in both cases forced more precise throws, and helped "make" the holes. I also think OB, if used intentionally, can be better than water or thick shule in some cases, because you know you will get your disc back, so it can take the "financial" decision out of play that some referenced.
The land in Mexico dictated that we had to have short holes to keep from interfering with the other park users, but most courses aren't that lucky. If you only have an open area to work with, with sparse trees, keeping in mind that trees cost money, and take time, and brick walls, etc even moreso, I think that some OB lines IF CLEARLY MARKED can make otherwise boring holes interesting, and create more technical challenges.
One of the diffrences between Ball and Disc golf is that the ground condition matters less to discers, since we dont hit off the ground, so going into a "sand trap" or slightly longer grass is not nearly the punishment for us as it is for ball golfers. They have to play much more precise placement golf, and factor in subtle terrain differences in putting, MUCH more than DGers do.
Case in point, making a 20 ft putt, ball golf vs disc golf. WAAAY easier in Disc (some days). Is having OB 15-20ft from the basket in Disc golf even as punishing (read: as likely to add 1-2 strokes on a miss) as the kind of sloped greens found on most ball golf courses? I would submit that it is not.
Am I saying that OB is always fair or adds to the hole? NO. but I think that clearly marked OB, used selectively, shouldn't be ruled out because its "not natural" Natural is arbitrary, whether its a river of concrete, rocks or water, as long as the rule is clear and it makes the hole interesting, who cares. Concrete OBs can also open up interesting skip lines that water does not.
In my opinion, OB needs to be clearly marked for it to be effective, ESPECIALLY if it is for safety reasons. If only locals know about a Mando and there's no signage, then it defeats the purpose for newbies who don't know the "unwritten rules". It needs to be clearly defined to be commonly accepted.
When I was living in Mexico in 2008, I played weekly rounds on the only course available: Parque Rufino Tamayo. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2467&mode=ci If you look at the hole info, you see that there are many 350ish par 4s, and that the distance seems pretty short overall. However, the course was nicknamed "El Castigador" (the punisher) by the locals because of the OB creekbed that cut through the park and the many OB walking paths the holes weaved between. The hilly terrain and the way the holes were designed, caused them to play very different as a result of the OB.
Hole #2 is a perfect example. 230 ft. you throw across the river, and the OB path beyond that, to the steep 15ft uphill that basket is on the level top of, with OB path 15ft beyond. Its a placement shot with a midrange to get it on the safe landing zone, but trying to run the basket means more risk of going long. It was a good hole, but without the OB, people would be easily laying up at the base of the hill, or bombing it past the basket and risking hitting walkers, so we needed OB for safety as well.
Hole #3 is only 203ft, but down a fairway bounded by a path on the left, that slopes down towards the river on the right, under the canopy of several mature trees. The open route is a ground skip off the path to left, and hope it stops before rolling down the hill, or you can shoot a midrange shot down either left or right side of fairway. Right side is more open, but also closer to the edge of dropoff down into creek bed, so more dangerous. fourth option is a spike hyzer over the creek, which was dangerous because of the bushes and trees that lined the bottom of creekbed. Never seen so many circle 4's on a 203ft hole, but it wasnt random, just a tough hole that forces you to think about landing a shot that wont roll down the hill.
The OB in both cases forced more precise throws, and helped "make" the holes. I also think OB, if used intentionally, can be better than water or thick shule in some cases, because you know you will get your disc back, so it can take the "financial" decision out of play that some referenced.
The land in Mexico dictated that we had to have short holes to keep from interfering with the other park users, but most courses aren't that lucky. If you only have an open area to work with, with sparse trees, keeping in mind that trees cost money, and take time, and brick walls, etc even moreso, I think that some OB lines IF CLEARLY MARKED can make otherwise boring holes interesting, and create more technical challenges.
One of the diffrences between Ball and Disc golf is that the ground condition matters less to discers, since we dont hit off the ground, so going into a "sand trap" or slightly longer grass is not nearly the punishment for us as it is for ball golfers. They have to play much more precise placement golf, and factor in subtle terrain differences in putting, MUCH more than DGers do.
Case in point, making a 20 ft putt, ball golf vs disc golf. WAAAY easier in Disc (some days). Is having OB 15-20ft from the basket in Disc golf even as punishing (read: as likely to add 1-2 strokes on a miss) as the kind of sloped greens found on most ball golf courses? I would submit that it is not.
Am I saying that OB is always fair or adds to the hole? NO. but I think that clearly marked OB, used selectively, shouldn't be ruled out because its "not natural" Natural is arbitrary, whether its a river of concrete, rocks or water, as long as the rule is clear and it makes the hole interesting, who cares. Concrete OBs can also open up interesting skip lines that water does not.
Last edited:
Similar threads
