Fair or foul?

[Buchajs1]

For the sake of fun rounds where you do not want to lose a disc, I would agree.

However, I have been in two scenarios where that should not be the case.

First, should someone who is rated just as high but has gained that rating because of accuracy and not distance be automatically forced to bail out and possibly be already a stroke behind? Or should that player who is rated just as high play in a lower division so he or she can play from the shorter tee? In one case he or she is at a disadvantage, in the other case he or she has a huge advantage.

Second, and more often my predicament, what if I can drive with the higher ranked players but because of my putting I do better overall in a lower division? I know it sounds slightly demeaning, but I personally do not like being "babied" with the short tees because my putting keeps me around a 915 rating. Risk versus reward should come from my shot selection and execution, but not from deciding which tee to use.

Then again while I am writing this, and again not to sound demeaning, I realized I am using Minnesotan logic in hole design where for better or worse most Minnesotans prefer to play from the long tees regardless of the circumstances.

You make a valid point. I do not think anybody should be scared to play in a division or the opposite, being babied because they can't putt.

 

[smarkquart]

I think someone throwing from the long tee can still throw the 280' shot to the area the short tee is located and still have a chance to putt for a birdie 4 with a well executed 2nd and 3rd shot.

So while the long over the water might seem it gives an advantage, I think playing that risk...not just being long but having to avoid the trees that guard a portion of the far shore, make the hole exciting.

Thanks for the feedback.

I am glad you are at least reading the thread and the feedback because truly without being there, our discussion is purely academic. I realize fully that you need to be there to feel the flow of the land to really determine what would make a great shot.

I guess the only point I really want to make here is that conscious risk versus reward is far more satisfying that a forced risk versus reward. I just never liked the idea of bailing out is a viable golfing option.

 

[DavidSauls]

If you are looking for a hole that can generate a scoring spread based upon fairness, find some way where an accurate player can reach the basket in the same throws as a strong-arm player. Bailing out just seems anti-competitive, almost punitive, producing the wrong type of scoring spread. Players should be punished score-wise when they cannot make the shot they are normally capable of.

I rather think that distance is a skill that can be rewarded sometimes, too.

I love the tee end of this hole. I'm not sure about the basket end, but I'd have to see it in person to judge. I wouldn't worry about players saying it's too tough to get a birdie.

I expect only players who can clear the water will be playing the blue tee. The concerns I might have are:

---the bailout looks pretty tough for a lefty or RHFH thrower.
---in the photos, the trees on the far side of the water look like they could knock down an otherwise-water-carrying shot.
---Is there a drop zone? The penalty for not carrying the water might be disproportionate---lost disc, effectively re-throwing from the tee and facing a 7, 8, or higher.

Regardless---I love this proposed hole.

 

[smarkquart]

Whatever you do, do not do this:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=3635&p=146a0ec7

EDIT: I cannot get the specific picture to url. Please look at the picture for Hole 8 tee.

The long tee is up against the "lake" and you have to force yourself into the woods to get back onto the fairway. I play it because it is there, but more often than not almost everyone skips this tee, and this is including what I said earlier about most Minnesotans always playing long tees.

Do not get any of us wrong; water hazards when available should always be used. I would just hate for you to design a long tee that almost never gets used. As a designer I would feel let down. It sounds like from those who have walked the property that it may not be as fearful as some of us who can only see pictures can imagine. I will just get back to my original observation; I do not like large water hazards right off the tee (because now you know that no matter what the situation, I will be throwing the longs).

 

[Dave242]

Cool hole! I like it a ton as is.....but I agree with Stan. Tons of people on the internet throw 450' consistently......not so much in real life.

Not knowing anything other than the pictures and your description, I am wondering if it might even be better to play it the other direction?? If the reward for big D getting closer to the edge of the water for an easier over-the-pond approach, more players will face a myriad more risk-reward choices.

 

[Stan McDaniel]

I am not stating this as if it were a fact but only as my opinion; the majority of advanced/pro level disc golfers can get 340-360'. It would be cool if they had an opportunity (as one stated earlier) to bite off as much as they could chew. Allow them to try for 310-390' by teeing at a slight angle.

Anyhow, looks like you have some great land and great idea. Rock on.

 

[Grungedude42]

I admit, I'm one of the few who would have difficulty hitting even the bail-out area from the blues. If I were a local, you'd find a lot of sunken pro wraiths and mambas just off the shore. That being said, don't stop, never stop making tough holes.

 

[DavidSauls]

If it doesn't work out, looks like there's always the option of moving the blue tee towards the white tee, shortening the water carry.....or even combining them into a blue/white tee.

 

[Carnavas]

I think the hole seems fair, especially if plenty of the other holes favor more finesse. Even if someone can throw fair, they'll still have to be accurate the rest of the way.

 

[aPfaff]

This looks like a great hole. Players that don't have the arm to get across do still have a shot at getting a four (fair). Man this really makes me want to play this course. Will the design incorporate the waterfall?

 

[biscoe]

beautiful but i think the carry is a bit too long and the trees right next to the water on the landing side make it a distinct possibility that good shots will be punished randomly- the gap isn't big enough to take the random factor out at that distance.

 

[smarkquart]

I think the hole seems fair, especially if plenty of the other holes favor more finesse. Even if someone can throw fair, they'll still have to be accurate the rest of the way.

After all I have said, this is the one thing that would make me happy about leaving the hole as is. In a competitive tournament or league setting, it is only the final score that matters. If there are fair ways to make up throws later, then let the distance throwers have one or two holes. I better see a hole later in the course that is only 250 feet long, 10-15 feet wide, with one or two trees in the middle of the fairway, and the basket sitting on the right side. No better way to challenge a power RHBH thrower than that by making them either throw a finesse turnover or switch over to forehand.

For the record, I can throw 380-400 consistently and fairly accurately, but I am trying real hard to be a finesse player. I enjoy wooded courses far more than open holes. I like courses where I can let my drives and second shots speak for me, making those tight gaps where others struggle, and taking putting out of the equation. This looks like you have a lot of potential to make a great course.

 

[baileyt1212]

Totally fair. I would love to play that hole.

 

[Sadjo]

That does look like an extremely fun hole. The only comment I would throw in is that at 390' (unless there is significant downhill trajectory for the tee shot) you are not going to tempt very many players to go for it. If it were in the range of 340-370' I think you would see a lot more action from the tee. I like to try to lure players into taking chances. That would not tempt me at 390'. At 350 or 360' I would probably not be able to stand laying up if the wind were not an adversary.

The blue tee and the white or middle tee are elevated. The long/blue about 10 or so feet above the water. The blue could be moved left where the fairway appears to be the side of the water and not over the water. That would give the 'feel' of the fairway from the long tee being a shot over land and only over water if one wanted the bigger risk.

The tee can also be move forward about 20-30'.

There are a couple of areas on this property which offer some nice par 5 holes with decent risk versus reward...this one is my favorite.

 

[Carnavas]

The tee can also be move forward about 20-30'.

If it is moved forward that much, how much risk is there of the pond rising up and flooding the pad with a bit of rain?

 

[bholy08]

makes me want to play it. players that love a challenge will want to tackle it. players with little nerve will dread it. Great hole design to differentiate between the two types of players.

 

[duckychucky]

Yeah, this hole looks fun but let's see the waterfall hole!

 

[mashnut]

I like the design a lot, though I agree that it looks like a tough bailout from the long tee for a lefty or forehand player. I love shots where you have to execute perfectly if you want to take the risky route, but there's a reasonable option to avoid the risk. I also think those look more like gold, blue and white tees rather than blue, white and red.

 

[dobbins66]

Forcing a player to bail out just does not seem fair in terms of competition. It puts too much premium on having distance. While there is no way to make every hole perfect, someone who has 250-300 dead accurate should have the same legitimate chance of getting par as someone who can throw 400+.

I agree with this statement. Holes looks beautiful but I think the combination of 390' to clear the water plus hit the narrow tree gap is not realistic. I could see 80%+ of pro/advanced players going OB or having to play around to the left - Too high in my opinion. I think the white tee makes a more appropriate blue tee. Just feel that with the tree gaps you are working with anything over a 300' water carry will be too much. As a previous posted stated - There is a big difference in internet distance, open field distance & true golf distance. While I agree that there will be score separation (Probably 4-8 range for advanced), I thing to large of a percentage will be because of OB strokes and the overall average very high.
Referencing the first pic - Personally I think if the Blue tee has between blue & white (setting up a 300-325 water carry) and white at the corner it would cause more players to play the intended route and throw the water shot which is what should be the goal.

Just my opinion but looks like a beautiful piece of land and I really like the layout of the hole. You'll never please everyone but at least you are considering feedback.

 

[mfcastillo17]

It is a fantastic looking hole. There are plenty of 500ft par 3 holes that everyone is ok with getting a par on, and the elite few can birdie. IMO there is nothing wrong with a par 5 where a par is a good score, birdie an excellent score.