smaller greens?

[1978]

To the OP.

Its not good design IMO to make a hole where 2 people throw 350ft accurately to within 15' of the basket. Discs separated by 4 ft and one has no putt and the other has a gimme. There are too many variables in the air (wind moisture) and on the ground (leaves rocks roots) to expect that a player can position his disc 4ft left or right from those distances. Greens should be fair as possible all the way around.

Second, practically speaking. Players will break the crap out of those trees' branches and they will be trashed within the first year.

 

[mhulkman]

thanks for the feedback everyone, I really appreciate it. Fortunately there is an A-D position for all 18 baskets so the course can be set up to where only 6-8 baskets at a time would have trees inside the circle, so it wouldnt be overkill. As I stated, this is a shorter, technical course, all but 2 par 3's are under 310ft and the upshots on the par 4's will be under 275 and as little as 125 for power throwers. I dont see a problem with taking away a third or half of the circle on a 250ft par 3 or a 190ft upshot to a par 4.

 

[thirtydirtybirds]

I mean, that's cool. Short course doesn't mean easy, and there are lots of ways to make short holes difficult. If you think the majority of players will like roots and tree branches knocking their otherwise great shot piped down the line into a spot where they have no putt from 6', then go for it. Your mind seems made up.

But get ready to have most of those branches broken out by this time next year. It's a sad truth that Johnny 6-pack will probably take care of that pruning for you.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Didn't read the whole thread, but saw lots of good feedback in the first 10 posts alone.

I prefer greens that are tucked away in a circle of trees or rocks, so that you have to hit a relatively narrow opening to get to the green.

If there are trees on the green I don't think they should have branches touching the ground. I think it's okay (and challenging) to have to kneel under branches to putt.

I'm on board with what Joe said here, I particularly like "pocketed" pin placements, because even if players have the distance off the tee, those placements still require good placement to benefit from it.

My specific response to the OP is: think variety.

It's fine to have some trees scattered about near a basket, such that they force you to actually hit a line on your approach, or risk having to make some sort of straddle, finesse or trick shot... particularly if the fairway itself isn't demanding.

But don't overdo it:
1) Don't make it so tree laden it's ridiculous.
2) Don't do it on every hole.

Try different variations on the "tees around the basket" theme that create different situations, like favoring shots that landing on a particular side of the basket, etc, rather than employing the same thing repeatedly, especially on multiple holes in succession.

I also like the opposite of what Joe mentioned: holes that have demanding, well-wooded fairways, that open up to a clearing only after you navigate a gauntlet of trees/brush.

I think holes that involve some sort contrasting of design elements like that more interesting.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Try different variations on the "trees around the basket" theme...

... 5 min monster got me.

 

[DavidSauls]

thanks for the feedback everyone, I really appreciate it. Fortunately there is an A-D position for all 18 baskets so the course can be set up to where only 6-8 baskets at a time would have trees inside the circle, so it wouldnt be overkill. As I stated, this is a shorter, technical course, all but 2 par 3's are under 310ft and the upshots on the par 4's will be under 275 and as little as 125 for power throwers. I dont see a problem with taking away a third or half of the circle on a 250ft par 3 or a 190ft upshot to a par 4.

Almost every hole on my local course has danger on the green---trees, or O.B., or a slope, or frequently combinations of these---but what matters is just how dangerous these things are.

I don't know what you mean by "taking away" a third or half the circle. But if it's truly taken away, where few putts can be made there, then you have a couple of potential problems: (1) shots from the taken away part are just 20-foot pitches to the good side, costing a stroke, but not much fun; and (2) shots from the good side are more likely to be layups to avoid ending up on the bad side, which is unduly punishing. Layups aren't much fun, either, and reduce the scoring spread.

But that's if it's truly "taken away", and not just demanding more skill from the bad side.

 

[mhulkman]

Sorry guys, I guess this isnt an easy question to answer since all courses are different and you would need to see the property. Its rolling foot hills, a lot of elevation with drop offs in some areas, and scattered junipers between 6-25ft tall. Its a shorter technical par 60. 9 tee shots are wide open and 9 are shaped, most of the fairways only have trees around the tees n greens with open sagebrush between. Referring to guarding a 3rd to half a circle its more in favor of using a different putting technique for your birdie attempt, not pitching to the open area. Not every tree has branches to the ground so putts from knees and windows, or a pizza toss or thumber, there is always a path to the basket and at least 10ft of clear space around the entire basket so its not completely closed off. I agree on VARIETY!!!! This course will have a ton of variety with some of the most unique holes in the region. Not to worried about the trees getting beat up as I stated there are 4 positions for each basket so the trees will get plenty of rest and ONLY 1 or 2 of the 4 positions for each hole has trees in the circle so only a third of the greens will play tight at any one time. And 4 holes on the course have no trees at all.

 

[ToddL]

In general, I'm in favor of doing anything within reason to make putting more difficult. Then I add a bunch of caveats to what defines "within reason", and before long, my greens are kind of boring.

I like "directional" greens in 180deg chunks. A dropoff behind the basket. An OB pond to the right of the basket. A wall of trees to the left of the basket.
I don't like random greens. Like, 1:00-2:00 is open, 2:00-4:00 is obstructed, 4:00-6:00 is open, 6:00-9:00 is obstructed, 9:00-11:00 is open, 11:00-1:00 is obstructed. In those cases, randomness overrides accuracy. You hit one root on the ground and your good shot gets bumped behind an obstruction.

 

[mrtho]

If this is a private course I say go for it. If it is a public course then you have problems. The problem is that you dont know who will be playing the course. A high level player may enjoy the challange but a new player is gonna call your course punishing. I have only been playing since last summer and if executed well then I think it could be fun but at the course i play most often the 3 holes i hate most can cost you a stroke inside the circle just from bad luck. The first has OB that runs all of 10ft behind the basket that means that around a third of the circle is actually OB, the second has two sidewalks that cross within 8ft of the hole meaning that a a unluck bounce or stop inside the circle is an automatic +1 to your score and the last has a combinaton of the two it has two sidewalks, one in fromt and one to the left of the hole and a creek running 10ft left of the hole. There are a couple holes on the same course with "guarded" greens that though i usiually fail I acutlly enjoy the challange.

so TLDR if it is a private course played by higher level players go for it. If it is a public course you should take luck out of it as much as possible.

 

[TimSyl]

It's not the same as golf. "The green" in this game is to indicate where putts must be stationary, you can "putt" from pretty much any distance you want. Golf you can't really putt from 5 feet off the cut.

That said, having baskets that close to trees on every hole doesn't seem like good design. I don't mind trees being in the circle, but when it limits the ability to have a reasonable shot from inside 30 then I think it's not so fun. What about a well played shot that hits a root and kicks under the lowest branch? That's not fair to me. It's hard enough for most players to get within comfortable putting distance on wooded courses, why punish good shots with bad luck? Death putts are fine, rocks are fine, obstructions are fine, but all together all the time isn't to me.

Golf you can't really putt from 5 feet off the cut. Sure you can, we call it a Texas Wedge

 

[thirtydirtybirds]

Golf you can't really putt from 5 feet off the cut. Sure you can, we call it a Texas Wedge

Touché sir.

 

[denny ritner]

Agreed. Scoring separation comes in the first 90% of the hole. It's nearly impossible to create scoring separation around the green and maintain fairness without uncontrollable features such as elevation, water, etc.

Disagree. It's the part of course design that we've only taken baby steps towards so far.

It starts with better defining the concept of "the green" from a design perspective and then designing holes backwards from green to tee. A useful design interpretation of the green is not equal to the 10 meter circle. Disc golf putts from 10 meters are approximately equal to 5 foot putts in ball golf for the best players. Disc golf greens from a design perspective are much bigger than the 10 meter circle. Depending on terrain and obstacles, design greens are better thought of in the 30-50 meter range.

Placing obstacles, drop-off's or OB's near a basket can be done well if they are fair. It's fair to have a steep drop-off with roll-away potential on a side of the basket if the ground can receive a lay-up shot without introducing lots of randomness into scoring. A basket placed on the side of a hill that has a rocky, uneven texture is not fair. A basket placed on a flat terrace near a drop-off can separate scores according to strategy and execution.

 

[denny ritner]

It scares me a bit. At some point we just need to accept that the challenge of our game is to birdie everything.

ewww

 

[denny ritner]

The primary question is: Are there compelling reasons to figure out a way to make putting more challenging either specifically for elite pro play, or for all pro divisions, or for all competition players?

Without this directive to really try to find a way coming from the PDGA, manufacturers/sponsors or Tour Directors like Dodge, there's no compelling reason to do the research and testing.

The compelling reason is that it will make the game better. There's a big opportunity to increase the importance of course management, while mindfully minimizing randomness on the greens. Increasing the golf in disc golf will make a great game even better.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The compelling reason is that it will make the game better. There's a big opportunity to increase the importance of course management, while mindfully minimizing randomness on the greens. Increasing the golf in disc golf will make a great game even better.

Making the game better might be nice to do but not necessarily compelling when you consider the already successful growth of the game. Of course, the growth of spectators is minimal and insufficient for sustainability. However, would improving putting dynamics have any impact at all to boost spectators? Hard to believe that alone would be enough but certainly worth trying if not too disruptive.

 

[denny ritner]

Making the game better might be nice to do but not necessarily compelling when you consider the already successful growth of the game. Of course, the growth of spectators is minimal and insufficient for sustainability. However, would improving putting dynamics have any impact at all to boost spectators? Hard to believe that alone would be enough but certainly worth trying if not too disruptive.

Priorities are personal. I do love having more spectators at big events, but that's not my primary motivation on this topic. Not that it isn't a worthy consideration.

 

[BrotherDave]

If you can't straddle out and still have a decent look at putting, your green is too crowded IMO. I like elevation, drop-offs, slopes, water, and natural obstacles like big rocks, etc but a wall of trees inside the circle is BS. Stupid to punish a great drive just b/c it skitters about the ground unluckily.

 

[denny ritner]

If you end up with a "wall" between yourself and the basket, then it wasn't a great drive.

 

[BrotherDave]

If you end up with a "wall" between yourself and the basket, then it wasn't a great drive.

Any tree that has branches from the ground up forms a wall. Two players can throw identical 300'+ drives, one can have a drop-in putt, one can kick off a root and roll around a cedar and have a par at best. That is terrible design, NOT the player's fault.

 

[Steve West]

Any tree that has branches from the ground up forms a wall. Two players can throw identical 300'+ drives, one can have a drop-in putt, one can kick off a root and roll around a cedar and have a par at best. That is terrible design, NOT the player's fault.

And a third guy could throw somewhere that there isn't a 50/50 chance of having no putt. What's really a bad throw?