Would you rather...?

[Steve West]

300 foot hill. Would you rather:

Climb to the top, throw mostly downhill holes, end at the bottom.

or

Play mostly uphill holes to the top, throw one reachable downhill 800 foot hole.

 

[Wendell Baker]

Uphill holes are the pits. The fewer, the better imo.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Not really sure what you mean by 300 ft hill.
Net elevation change = 300ft?

That'd be a helluva loong way to walk without throwing a disc.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of variety and Bal CE on a course. I say make use the hill on both directions if possible.

 

[Casey 1988]

I would make the course so it goes up the hill but not always up with some no up or down holes in getting to the top using the terrain to guide me where to go, few down on the way up.

Climb to the top unless it is a ski lift, is no fun. The ski resort with ski lift for Disc Golf playing at the top for 9 holes then throw down for a long hole was fun, the course also had a lower 9 for the course that was also the 10-18 for the rest of the course in case one did not want to pay to use the lift. To play the lower 9 was fun each hole had 2 sets of numbers 1-9 and 10-18 on them. The course was WISP Disc Golf Resort in Delaware that was fun except the baskets were Knock off recycled aluminum DB-5 that were staked to the ground so discs cut through the aluminum chains fairly easy. I played that course on vacation.

 

[DavidSauls]

Should a 300' elevation drop be wasted on a single hole? You can make 3-5 nice elevation drops out of that!

But if you do, note that the 17 holes to reach the top have an average of 18' elevation gain each. If you siphon off half that in the transition walks between holes, it's even more modest.

Of course, the answer to the question not asked is, "Either choice is a waste of a 300' hill."

But forced to choose, I'd play uphill to get to the one downhill hole, because I'd rather play than just walk. But I wouldn't play that course very often.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Corrected for typo

Not really sure what you mean by 300 ft hill.
Net elevation change = 300ft?

That'd be a helluva loong way to walk without throwing a disc.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of variety and Bal CE balance on a course. I say make use the hill on both directions if possible.

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

I don't know how much elevation is lost at Solitude, but 18 holes of pretty much all downhill was pretty awesome. Throw in the option of 6 additional up and 3 additional down. Hmmm. Anybody want to take me to Utah?

 

[Jay Dub]

At my age I'd take a cart (if available) to the top, hole #1, and play down the hill.

 

[biscoe]

Course Design Rule #13708- don't compromise the quality of a bunch of other holes just to have one great one.

 

[Cranky]

If I have to walk uphill for any reason you had better let me throw down. The worst is throwing an uphill hole and then walking down to the bottom to throw uphill again. Ugh.

(There's a local course that does this, so I'm triggered)

 

[Putt for D'oh]

If I have to walk uphill for any reason you had better let me throw down. The worst is throwing an uphill hole and then walking down to the bottom to throw uphill again. Ugh.

(There's a local course that does this, so I'm triggered)

My home course has a couple holes this way. It was a redesign forced by errant down hill shots disturbing a neighbor. To keep the course from getting pulled the down hill got reversed. Casual rules are throw both drives and walk up the hill once to putt out on one then the other.

Just because the hole is uphill doesn't mean it sucks. Would much rather play uphill uphill uphill then back down than hike all the way up in one shot. Have had a few shotgun starts that are on near the highest elevation holes to start the round and hate it. Would rather play my way to the top every time.

 

[Jay Dub]

My home course has a couple holes this way. It was a redesign forced by errant down hill shots disturbing a neighbor. To keep the course from getting pulled the down hill got reversed. Casual rules are throw both drives and walk up the hill once to putt out on one then the other.

Just because the hole is uphill doesn't mean it sucks. Would much rather play uphill uphill uphill then back down than hike all the way up in one shot. Have had a few shotgun starts that are on near the highest elevation holes to start the round and hate it. Would rather play my way to the top every time.

Yes it does.

 

[Monocacy]

I would hope that the course designer would evaluate other options besides those listed. Drive to the middle, play a mix of uphill, downhill, side hill, diagonal, etc. holes.

 

[Dire Wolfy]

Downhill is amazing for internet distance so you say you threw a 500 ft hyzer when in reality you really throw 350

 

[Mando]

300 foot hill. Would you rather:

Climb to the top, throw mostly downhill holes, end at the bottom.

or

Play mostly uphill holes to the top, throw one reachable downhill 800 foot hole.

I think this is a trick question...climb to the top ? Climbing while throwing of not throwing?

 

[armiller]

Elevation change in disc golf can (rarely) turn into too much of a good thing. Finding a balance between the two is part of what makes a great course. One of my favorite local courses, Orange Crush, has an epic stretch from hole 10 to 16. Hole 10 is a gentle/long downhill, 11 is a pretty steep one, 13 is another steep downhill, and 16 another steep one. Any one of these could be a signature hole at most courses nation wide, as those excellent steep downhills are some of the most memorable on the course. I've always just accepted that some of those holes (12 in particular) are bound to be "ordinary" or maybe less enjoyable/memorable because you need to gain elevation again.

Now the OP is getting at the philosophy of uphill versus downhill. In terms of course design, well-designed uphill shots fill in a course with a unique challenge while bringing us back to the higher tees. I respect that. There's one course I remember in southern California, Brengle Terrace, that seemed to go out of its way to prevent downhill shots. I think that made the course safer for pedestrians, but it was frustrating and even insulting as a disc golfer, because the design forced you to walk up lots of hills without being able to throw down any (okay, MOST) of them.

TLDR: if you're a designer, accept the challenge. Use the up of your hills just as well as the down.

 

[armiller]

The other extreme are ski courses. I haven't played many, but most (Wisp Resort at Deep Creek, MD, is one) solve the problem by letting you ride a lift to the top. That particular course has a >15 minute lift ride and then 9 decent holes to the bottom. Only two are "top of the world" type of shots, with around four other less dramatic downhill variations. The top of the world shots make the course, that's for sure, but I'd still take a better designed up-and-down type of course. The terrain in this part of the country (western Maryland, western/central Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania, West Virginia, eastern Kentucky) lends itself really well to that kind of up/down sort of course, and it's really a waste not to use it.

 

[Discette]

300 foot hill. Would you rather:

Climb to the top, throw mostly downhill holes, end at the bottom.

or

Play mostly uphill holes to the top, throw one reachable downhill 800 foot hole.

I have played many ski resort courses and mountain courses. A lift to the top to play all the way down is awesome but not always an available option. For the mountain courses without lifts, the most enjoyable to play are those that TRAVERSE the landscape. It still allows the opportunity for couple of mostly up holes and/or a couple of mostly down holes. Great example is Sky High, CA. 27 holes, each 9 wraps back to the lodge/parking area.

If I do have to hike to the top (no lifts), I prefer a gentle traverse to the top like Kirkwood Ski, CA or Jackson, WY Of course a couple of really long finishing holes are the super fun reward for the trek up. I really don't like throwing a hole straight up and then walking over and playing one straight down or vice versa.

Craig Getty in the Lake Tahoe Region is an excellent designer of courses with elevation changes including ski resorts. I am sure he would be willing to share design advice with you. Please PM me if you want his contact info.

 

[JC17393]

Best use of a hill in a course is to get as wide a variety of shots as possible, same as any other landscape. Uphill, downhill, sidehill (in both directions), flat. Much rather have an equal share of all of those than either of the options in the poll.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

Seems not many people understand the concept of "would you rather"...

More from my angle. Many of the courses in my area have a bit of a walk to the first hole. Some if you don't pay to park you have to walk up a hill to start. Quite a few reviews i've seen ding a course for having to walk to the first hole. seems odd to me since you are about to walk a few miles while playing... but meh... opinions and all that. Then as well my home course those that park at "the bottom of the hill" ish for free, most rather than walk up choose to start at hole 3 or 6 depending on where they parked.

My guess is that most people would rather not start a round by walking up a hill, but rather play up and down.
i mean there are lots of hills I think it would be cool to throw a disc from the top... but i'd rather go play a course than walk up to the top of the hill for the sole purpose of throwing the disc down.