Gimmick Holes

[Dsplayname]

I thought the Hippodrome was supposed to be gimmicky; that's why the Hogback is right there. A couple novelties are nice for a course that otherwise wouldn't have any signature holes, but too many spices in the stew kills the flavor.

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

Fun Hole=hole you scored well on

Gimmick Hole=hole that you blew up on

U obviously didn't read the thread. It has nothing to do with how u score on the hole. I suck at wide open long holes but I know they aren't gimmicky.

 

[Mattallica]

if a course has 2 or less and they are not the same gimmick then it's fine by me

 

[ATrainWecker]

I miss the 2006 World's layout at the Hippo. It got MAYjorly gimmicky after that.

LOL! :hfive:

 

[mashnut]

Hippodrome is definitely gimmicky, but in a way that presents some legitimate disc golf challenges. I wouldn't want to see every course go that direction, but I enjoyed it there.

 

[DavidSauls]

Still struggling with my own definition of gimmicky. I've seen baskets set on mounds, even tall mounds, whether pre-existing or created for the disc golf course. They don't seem gimmicky to me, though I'd prefer not to have a lot on one course. I've seen baskets on picnic tables, haybales, and other constructions. They all seemed gimmicky to me.

Yet it's not entirely the artificial aspect....I've been fine with roped O.B., barriers to rollers, and other creations enhancing a course. So I'm stuck with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Anyone else with the same viewpoint, but a better description?

Oh, and I've felt virtually ever double- or triple-mando I've encountered to be gimmicky as well.

 

[Dsplayname]

I suck at wide open long holes but I know they aren't gimmicky.

Length can be a gimmick as well; look at Flyboy or JP Mosley. I would say that any straight, open hole requiring more than 2 full force, hopefully 500+ foot drives, is using length as a gimmick. We all know it's the girth, and not the length, that really fills out a good disc golf hole.

 

[Ryan P.]

Still struggling with my own definition of gimmicky. I've seen baskets set on mounds, even tall mounds, whether pre-existing or created for the disc golf course. They don't seem gimmicky to me, though I'd prefer not to have a lot on one course. I've seen baskets on picnic tables, haybales, and other constructions. They all seemed gimmicky to me.

Yet it's not entirely the artificial aspect....I've been fine with roped O.B., barriers to rollers, and other creations enhancing a course. So I'm stuck with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Anyone else with the same viewpoint, but a better description?

Oh, and I've felt virtually ever double- or triple-mando I've encountered to be gimmicky as well.

I agree that it's just something that when you see it, you know what it is. However, I think that the ideal Disc golf course will have many more elevation changes than most have now. but the more artificial it is, the more gimmicky it will seem.

and I completely agree that mandos seem gimmicky, and when there is more than one part of a hole with a mando, I hate that. It's almost as if they were saying, "Hey, we didn't have a good spot for another hole, so we forced one in here with this mando."

However, a course is a course is a course. The only hard and fast rules of course design that I think should always be followed in every circumstance without exception all the time (is that clear enough?) is that the teeing area should be large enough that it is safe, and a basket should be low enough that it allows basically everyone a chance at a drop-in. ("Basically everyone" excludes short children and little people) Now, John Houck knows a lot more about design than I do, but I think that there is some place to break basically every other rule. So breaking the rules some equals something that is okay. But doing it over and over again makes it gimmicky. That's the best way I can describe what makes something gimmicky.

 

[5slamma]

Girth

Length can be a gimmick as well; look at Flyboy or JP Mosley. I would say that any straight, open hole requiring more than 2 full force, hopefully 500+ foot drives, is using length as a gimmick. We all know it's the girth, and not the length, that really fills out a good disc golf hole.

That's what she said! :hfive:

 

[billnchristy]

Length can be a gimmick as well; look at Flyboy or JP Mosley. I would say that any straight, open hole requiring more than 2 full force, hopefully 500+ foot drives, is using length as a gimmick. We all know it's the girth, and not the length, that really fills out a good disc golf hole.

I don't know man...at Flyboy the runway hole was certainly a gimmick and a way to have the longest hole in the world but the relatively narrow fairway and OB made it challenging.

The current long hole is VERY challenging and requires more finese than pure power.

Still haven't played Moseley and when I do I will play one of the wussier layouts anyways so no comment there.

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

Length can be a gimmick as well; look at Flyboy or JP Mosley. I would say that any straight, open hole requiring more than 2 full force, hopefully 500+ foot drives, is using length as a gimmick. We all know it's the girth, and not the length, that really fills out a good disc golf hole.

Length is not gimmick. camoflauged net in the woods is. horse gate around a basket is. cmon dude. quit being a DA

 

[John Rock]

I agree that it's just something that when you see it, you know what it is. However, I think that the ideal Disc golf course will have many more elevation changes than most have now. but the more artificial it is, the more gimmicky it will seem.

and I completely agree that mandos seem gimmicky, and when there is more than one part of a hole with a mando, I hate that. It's almost as if they were saying, "Hey, we didn't have a good spot for another hole, so we forced one in here with this mando."

However, a course is a course is a course. The only hard and fast rules of course design that I think should always be followed in every circumstance without exception all the time (is that clear enough?) is that the teeing area should be large enough that it is safe, and a basket should be low enough that it allows basically everyone a chance at a drop-in. ("Basically everyone" excludes short children and little people) Now, John Houck knows a lot more about design than I do, but I think that there is some place to break basically every other rule. So breaking the rules some equals something that is okay. But doing it over and over again makes it gimmicky. That's the best way I can describe what makes something gimmicky.

I thought that was funny the way you put these so close together.

 

[bergdawg]

Hogback at Hippodrome is an awesome course. It doesn't really have any of the gimmicks the front course has.

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

so would you say that the front course is a little excessive for your taste?

 

[atl scott]

Length is not gimmick.

Did you ever play the runway hole at flyboy? The 15 or so times I played it I always felt like it was a gimmick. Throw straight in an open field 7 times (all while trying to keep track of score cause they all look/feel the same) add an OB stroke or 2 in there then putt out.

It was length for length's sake.

 

[Ryan P.]

I thought that was funny the way you put these so close together.

Hah, that was unintentional. Is he even short? I assumed he was as big as Paul Bunyan.

 

[John Rock]

His heart is where the real size is.:thmbup:

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

Did you ever play the runway hole at flyboy? The 15 or so times I played it I always felt like it was a gimmick. Throw straight in an open field 7 times (all while trying to keep track of score cause they all look/feel the same) add an OB stroke or 2 in there then putt out.

It was length for length's sake.

no. I never played it. but if you were really throwing 7 times then yes that is length for lengths sake. the point of my statement was that just because i score poorly on a hole doesnt make it gimmicky. and i typically dont score well on long open holes.

 

[atl scott]

The hole is (was?) a straight, open 1600 feet long and the fairway has OB down both sides the length of the hole. I'd guess the hole is 60 feet wide. There is usually wind to deal with. Basically I just throw safe hyzers 300' because OB is such a factor. IIRC my best score on that hole is a 7 (par) with no OBs. Any time I tried to bomb or throw rollers to try to score well I ended up OB at least once on the hole and ended up worse. I am a 950 golfer (but wind and hyzers aren't my strength) if that lends any perspective.

 

[Rockwell]

One of the great things about disc golf is that is a "natural" sport. You get out into and interact with "nature". Wooded paths, grassy areas, creekbeds, ect.

When you start to introduce man made objects (colorful plastic, rusty cars, ect.) it begins to look a little gimmicky, much the way a mini golf course looks compared to a ball golf course.

However, if a course owns the fact that it has fun gimmicks (like Hippodrome does), and doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is, it works for me.

But aesthetically, a natural hole will always look better to me. (i.e. a winding river creating a peninsula green is greater than hay bales in a field creating this)