review beef

[trifocal]

Just gotta play one throw at a time. Finding a line on tighter holes doesn't happen on a average players first attempt. It might be a hula hoop sized opening 80' down on the left. I imagine I'm throwing to a buddy who's standing there. Playing catch. Experimenting with tight or seemingly impossible holes can be fun. Its like a puzzle....

^ hit me up with a corn dog.

 

[TalbotTrojan]

Just gotta play one throw at a time. Finding a line on tighter holes doesn't happen on a average players first attempt. It might be a hula hoop sized opening 80' down on the left. I imagine I'm throwing to a buddy who's standing there. Playing catch. Experimenting with tight or seemingly impossible holes can be fun. Its like a puzzle....

^ hit me up with a corn dog.

I like the puzzle analogy. I think this is part of the reason I love playing Disc Golf so much as well as other activities that are like figuring out a puzzle. My most recently solved puzzle was my birdie on #7 on the back 18 at La Mirada. The basket is in the 700' par 4 position and yesterday I got my three. Throw an amazing roller followed by a great second fairway drive through a tight gap and has it skip right up to the basket for a near drop in three.

 

[billnchristy]

Who's got the corn dogs?

 

[Dave242]

I took the main issue/beef of this thread as the perception that some reviewers take issue with the hole shape, not the narrowness. I am in total agreement that holes can be too narrow. That said, if there are 1 maybe 2 pinball holes per course, that is fine. More than that is excessive, IMO. The cool thing about pinball holes is that they reward perfect execution and then also test recovery skills of the majority who do not hit the line perfectly.

Getting back to the hole shape topic..... Here is a line of thinking that leads me to make comments and have thoughts about hole shapes that do not fit the natural flight path of discs:

Imagine a hole that is very wooded and is an L shape. Each leg is 80' long and 20 feet wide and has a 15' high ceiling and logs across the fairway in several places on each leg. There is no way you can "go for it". The only option to play it is doinker to the elbow, doinker to the basket, putt. I would guess that the vast majority of people would agree that this is a poorly shaped hole. (The only risk/reward challenge would going for a throw-in deuce.....not a good differentiator of skilz.)

Now imagine a similar hole that is Z shaped with each leg being 100' long with enough schule to make cut-throughs impossible. Same conclusion: Bad hole shape.

Now imagine flattening out the Z towards a "lazy S" shape. At a certain point of flattening you get a better hole - 2 shots of ~150', 1 hyzer and 1 anhyzer. Interesting! This might be a great hole for beginners since it is so short. But....it is boring for more accomplished players. Unless you flatten the Z to almost dead straight, there is no throw that will go 300' on this hole from tee to basket. So, trying for a 2 is foolish, and playing as intended is boring. If I am reviewing this hole, it is a bad hole.

If I am reviewing the course and there is one such hole, no mark-down for the course. But if there are 3-6 (or more) such holes, I mark it down big time. (I take this approach with all gimmicky shapes and creative/gimmicky design techniques.)

I am very aware that these 3-6 holes on this imaginary course would be a good challenge for a player who can throw accurately 180' max .....and those folks may love this course. And, rightly so since it is a creative and fitting throwing test for their skill level.

Corn dog please! ....a Maine beef one pls

 

[billnchristy]

Good post. Damn good examples of legitimate "bad holes" too.

Now if that Z shape had a 8' wide swath cut through that would just tempt you to go for it...that might make it a good...and very evil hole.

 

[Dave242]

For sure! There are usually ways to turn bad holes into good/interesting ones. BTW, that is one of my issues with reviewing courses after I play them and they are still new and getting tweaked.

I have no problem with having a new course have a lot of weird shaped holes since trees come down by themselves over time, and they can be taken down as the designer gets more of a feeling for how the course/hole is playing. And, once a (decent sized) tree comes down....it is never going to be replaced, so if the process of taking down trees in the early years of the course takes a few years, that is a good thing.

 

[billnchristy]

Yeah that would really suck to lose a tree that takes a legit par 3 and makes it an ace run. Then you have to go cut the clown shape out of a sheet of ply wood to lean against the basket.

 

[zbyrd]

Mostly I agree with what has been said, but I have played some courses where the original comments apply. For example, North Asheboro Park, which I otherwise love, has a habit of jamming 10-15 thin trees right in front of the basket. I realize I have a lot to learn about the sport, but I don't know anyone that can thread the 3 foot gaps between these trees from 250-300ft. Basically, getting to these aforementioned trees requires skill, but beyond that, getting through them is a matter of luck more than anything else.

With that said, maybe the designers just intended to force the player to lay up near the trees where shooting the gap would be easier, then make a run at the basket, rather than having a shot at the ace from the tee.

However, for me, the bottom line is that you and your opponent both have to deal with the same obstacles, so it is fair either way. It's just more fun to play a course that is difficult by way of shot selection, not just difficult because of errant obstacles.

 

[Marty McFly]

These are the same people who bring out chain saws for some course "maintenance"

Then everyone wonders where that tree went that was 10' from the tee box. Seems people want the course adjusted to them.

 

[plus4db]

puzzles and percentages

Not all wood holes are good holes! I would even say that BrotherDave's example is proof of this. I love technical courses, but if the average to good player's percentage of getting a decent throw out without hitting 5 trees is so low then the hole is pretty bad IMO.

Wooded holes should be playable without significant tree interference when you get off a great throw. ie - straight off in the direction of your release with minimal fade. If the pinball affect is set to trees every 4' apart then you are solely relying on luck!!! I don't care how good you are I think luck is great, but a hole should never rely on luck being how par is acheived!

I think a hole can reward luck for a beginner or average player, but that upper tier players should never be relying on luck on a course. That's just my opinion.

I have no idea what an expert would say! It would be nice if one would chime in.

Luck always comes into account no matter how good you are. There are only so many variables one can control. Even pros get lucky. But as Branch Rickey said, "Luck is the residue of design." A great player gets luckier because they have learned to control more variables. If we could control all variables, there would be no sport in it. Besides, there are infinite variables. Luck is ALWAYS a part of every shot. If a lucky shot is the only shot that will clear the tree, then luck favors the more skilled player. The better you get at figuring out how to throw a hole, the better chance you have of getting lucky. It's just about solving the puzzle and playing percentages.

 

[plus4db]

I took the main issue/beef of this thread as the perception that some reviewers take issue with the hole shape, not the narrowness. I am in total agreement that holes can be too narrow. That said, if there are 1 maybe 2 pinball holes per course, that is fine. More than that is excessive, IMO. The cool thing about pinball holes is that they reward perfect execution and then also test recovery skills of the majority who do not hit the line perfectly.

Getting back to the hole shape topic..... Here is a line of thinking that leads me to make comments and have thoughts about hole shapes that do not fit the natural flight path of discs:

Imagine a hole that is very wooded and is an L shape. Each leg is 80' long and 20 feet wide and has a 15' high ceiling and logs across the fairway in several places on each leg. There is no way you can "go for it". The only option to play it is doinker to the elbow, doinker to the basket, putt. I would guess that the vast majority of people would agree that this is a poorly shaped hole. (The only risk/reward challenge would going for a throw-in deuce.....not a good differentiator of skilz.)

Now imagine a similar hole that is Z shaped with each leg being 100' long with enough schule to make cut-throughs impossible. Same conclusion: Bad hole shape.

Now imagine flattening out the Z towards a "lazy S" shape. At a certain point of flattening you get a better hole - 2 shots of ~150', 1 hyzer and 1 anhyzer. Interesting! This might be a great hole for beginners since it is so short. But....it is boring for more accomplished players. Unless you flatten the Z to almost dead straight, there is no throw that will go 300' on this hole from tee to basket. So, trying for a 2 is foolish, and playing as intended is boring. If I am reviewing this hole, it is a bad hole.

If I am reviewing the course and there is one such hole, no mark-down for the course. But if there are 3-6 (or more) such holes, I mark it down big time. (I take this approach with all gimmicky shapes and creative/gimmicky design techniques.)

I am very aware that these 3-6 holes on this imaginary course would be a good challenge for a player who can throw accurately 180' max .....and those folks may love this course. And, rightly so since it is a creative and fitting throwing test for their skill level.

Corn dog please! ....a Maine beef one pls

In the case of the "Z" shaped hole, I would look at it as a fade direction and fade timing problem. A great player could par it and lesser players like myself would just get better from playing it. If every hole on the course is like that then that is the character of the course. Some may like it and some may not but you can't define a "bad" hole that way.

 

[zbyrd]

Luck always comes into account no matter how good you are. There are only so many variables one can control. Even pros get lucky. But as Branch Rickey said, "Luck is the residue of design." A great player gets luckier because they have learned to control more variables. If we could control all variables, there would be no sport in it. Besides, there are infinite variables. Luck is ALWAYS a part of every shot. If a lucky shot is the only shot that will clear the tree, then luck favors the more skilled player. The better you get at figuring out how to throw a hole, the better chance you have of getting lucky. It's just about solving the puzzle and playing percentages.

I would agree. Luck is a part of any throw. However, the level of luck required to par a hole is what we are discussing here. A 50ft hole through 20 trees involves a lot more luck than a 600ft hole in a wide open field. Luck and be your friend or enemy, that's where all the fun is, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor in your score. With bad course design, this is sometimes the case. Any intermediate or better player should feel as though their score is all but dictated by their skills. Luck should only come into play, more than a negligible amount, if they screw up and throw a line they did not intend to.

To make my point more literal, I would be really irritated with my example of a 50ft hole purely made of trees. Despite the fact that I know how to throw a disc in many different ways, anyone could pick up a disc and have just as good a shot at the basket as I do. I realize this hole would probably never happen, but a similar level of luck is involved in plenty of real bad holes. The point of a sport is to be able to control the results with your skills. Luck can be a fun equalizer, but it should never affect someone's game, by way of course design or otherwise, more than a couple strokes plus or minus.

 

[zbyrd]

Finding a line on tighter holes doesn't happen on a average players first attempt

Obligatory: That's what she said.

 

[billnchristy]

The better you get at figuring out how to throw a hole, the better chance you have of getting lucky

Ditto.

 

[innova]

I call out, "get lucky!" quite frequently.

:^/

Couldn't agree more about playing %'s

It is all in the mindset too, imho. Adapt & Overcome.
There is no hole I am askeeert of. Bring em on.

We make up crazy safari holes every Sunday morning! (early krewe)

 

[innova]

You look at everything like everyone is a pro.

Just because I used to play in pro masters does not mean I am a pro.
I just refused to bag all over my ADV MAST friends, is all.

Pehaps my perspective is why i kick butt on a fairly regular basis at this sport? Not sure, but I am an old fart and none of the "ADV" or local pros beat me all that much... but my only point is that is because of sheer will power on my part. I do what it takes to win at dg, in regards to skill set...



If every course is designed for people that have 6 different kind of shots then there will be no new people to the sport. They will give up because it is ridiculously hard for them.

That is a matter of perspective. I was one of those folks that immediately wanted to play holes that were kinda crazy shaped from jump street.... we STILL make up crazy safari holes on a weekly basis in our area :^/

If you want every course this way, fine, have a tee with a forest in front of it and a somewhat reasonable fairway off a normal tee.

I am not asking for 60' wide fields on every hole...but 3-8' feet is a little much.

Of course... not every hole should be crazy shaped, JUST AS, not every hole should be easy breezy.

Like I said before...if I hit a tree I take my lumps but if I took my father to a course like this as his first experience there is no way in hell he would come out with me again.

The miniature golf aspect of our sport just minimizes it IMO

To each their own. Some of us got better by overcoming the obstackles... imho.

Wait till you play Cottage Hill. roflmao.

 

[DannyM]

I'm like Innova, I enjoy the tough technical holes that make you think about shot selection, other than grip it and rip it. I can see the other side of the fence thinking as well, in that I have a 5 yr. old son that I'm introducing in to the sport, and if you have a very tough hole, than it is daunting for him. My suggestion....if you know a course is tough, don't take a beginner. If there is just 1-2 holes that are really tough, and the rest of the course is easier, than either skip the hole, make up a "short" teepad for it, or just warn the player and let them decide.

 

[billnchristy]

Yeah I think we agree, just on different levels.

It would be a pretty lousy course if they just handed you good scores...why even bother, just write in 18 birdies and go home and drink beer.

I guess if I had beef with difficult courses it would be tee placement. There should be a tee that makes it *possible* for a novice to still score well...not handed to him...not a tee 10 feet from the basket, but something that provides an easier line.

 

[innova]

Sure, sure... I am not saying some of the holes aren't crazy hard and might make a noob intimidated. Thank goodness for the short tees, etc... that many designers add to a course.

Not all holes are as you folks describe, however... in fact, the majority of dg designers make it easy on ya, imho. The vast majority of dg holes are the easier variety, not the crazy hard stuff, imho.

Or, at least that is my experience in playing on nearly 80 courses.

 

[billnchristy]

Well...to further stir my own pot, I also have beef with poorly designed short tees. I like the option of a shorter throw, but a lot of the time it strips out so much character from the hole that it makes it not even satisfying.

I think the short tee should be a "junior" version of the big one...if the Gold tee or blue tee or whatever your longest tee is has a tree to either side then so should the red tee...just not as close.

Here is an example of what I mean. My little pic shows a tight tree tunnel with a dogleg. Not an overall horribly difficult shot, but one could see how this could be a little much for a newbie. The red tee is almost the same shot...a little shorter and a little less dogleg and much more open. It is still a challenge, not a gimme, its still a blind shot, it is just a little less risky than the blue.