Do Gold players LIKE or just RESPECT Gold course designs?

[ck34]

It's been my observation, but not scientific research, that top Gold level players (super pros) don't necessarily like courses designed to challenge their skills even though they may respect courses like Renny Gold and Winthrop Gold for tournament play. I believe it's because they are used to destroying and have fun torching the design parameters of typical public courses with hole lengths from the long tees that are more suited for Blue (975>) level players. I don't blame them but I think it's interesting from a designer's standpoint.

Gold level players average about 0.3 better per hole than Blue level players with the top Gold guys doing even better. If a hole averages 3.0 for Blue level, the Gold player will average better than 2.7 meaning they will get a birdie at least one out of three times to steadily surge ahead of the Blue player. Even better, good holes that average 2.7 for the Blue player will fall into the dreaded Par 2 zone for Gold players with an average under 2.4 on those holes. That can be fun, not only for Gold players, but all players.

I'm in the process of developing a new public course that is mostly open, so length is the primary element that's available to produce scoring spread. A local Gold level player prefers some 400 ft holes (Houck's dumb hole length range for Blue level), that only a handful of players in the state might birdie, versus setting these holes in the 475-525 range (the space is available) which would make these holes more challenging for most players except the super pros to strive for 3s.

He claims that rec players love open holes in the 375-425 range. He's partly right because there are more White level (900) rec players than Blue level, especially non-PDGA players. For them, a hole in that range is a challenge to get a 3 like the 480 footer is for Blue level. So, do you follow the ball golf design approach and design consistently for one skill level from each set of tees? Or, not worry about it and just throw down the pins and tees and not worry too much about hole lengths and scoring spread? Remember, there's nothing but elevation to deal with (which has been accounted for in the effective lengthsfor this discussion), very little foliage and no OB hazards. There will also be a shorter set of tees on this course.

[gnduke]

I am not a gold player, so my opinion may not count for much.

I like holes that challenge every throw. Not all of those throws need to be big crushes off the tee, and with an open park, you have little else for challenge. The targets should be set where the long approach is as demanding as possible.

[dave_marchant]

I would just throw down pads and baskets at a variety of lengths. For this type of course I would do that and only put in one set of pads. IMO, this will maximize the fun factor for a course that sounds otherwise pretty unattractive. Here is my reasoning:

My problem with open courses that offer no real length variety is that you eliminate the upside for fun for a large portion of the playing population. In my case, I hate courses that are relatively open and all the holes are 380-500'. I throw 300-320' consistently and can sometimes get up to 360'. I think that the majority of Adv players are in this category. 380-500' holes offer 80-200' upshots...and I feel horrible if I don't get within 25' of the pin on those approach shots. So the drive is boring and there is no upside other than the occasional upshot that accidentally goes in. All there is is the downside of bad upshots since bad drives go unpunished. I would rather go to the local highshool practice football field and throw to my little heart's content.

But this same course could be really fun for the big arm, or to shorter arms where a score of 4 would be rewarding.

I'm sure you are well aware of this kind of thinking, but hopefully this affirms things in some way or another.

[Moderator005]

Are looking for answers to this question from top Gold level players? (super pros) There aren't many that regularly frequent the message board.

[dave_marchant]

PS: this might be a real neat place to experiment with directional targets. That would force you to really have to place your upshot well and consider risk-reward on challenging putts.

[dave_marchant]

Oh...and one other PS: I thought of what I think would be a cool way to do "sand traps" for disc golf on long and open 2-shot holes. If you can lace the fairway with 1' diameter rocks for a swath of say 50-60' at the length where a majority would want to land, you could make an area where run-ups would be impossible.

Having to throw flat-footed would be equivalent to having to pull out a sand wedge or high numbered iron with say 200 yards to the green in ball golf.

[ck34]

I didn't want this to taint the dialog but the site is a beautiful ski hill. So even though most of the holes are in the open, the elevation changes will make this a fun course. The several holes where the lengths were in question are cross hill and esentially level.

[NEngle]

Great question Chuck. I'm facing a similar situation in central Ohio. We figure 6-8 holes could bring the woods in to play & the rest will be open, open, open.

This is an old farm that the city wants to turn into a park. Disc Golf will be one of the first things in there, so we pretty much have our pick of the 475 acre plot. The money they have set aside is more than ample. The original thought was two pins & two tees for each hole, but after walking the land for many hours, that kinda seems like overkill. After we left the last time I started thinking that big boomer & open 2 shot holes sounded boring. I think mp3 said it well.

You can't put a gold level course on white level land.

Now we're thinking about alternate tees & pins only where it will require an alternate shot to get there. Then using the left over money to plant trees & provide great amenities.

[johnrhouck]

Oh...and one other PS: I thought of what I think would be a cool way to do "sand traps" for disc golf on long and open 2-shot holes. If you can lace the fairway with 1' diameter rocks for a swath of say 50-60' at the length where a majority would want to land, you could make an area where run-ups would be impossible.
.

Fascinating. I'm going to have to give that one some thought.

Chuck, why are you so concerned about Gold players on this course? They're probably not going to be very interested in a course with no trees.

As Dave Dunipace likes to point out, weaker pros may not be able to reach an open 400' hole in the air, but they can reach it with a roller. And they only need to be accurate at 370' to get a putt. As for appropriate length on two-shot holes, I would think an open hole probably needs to be at least 575'-625' for Blue players.

And as for what people enjoy, I've always suspected that people liked open holes at the max distance they can realistically throw -- that way you need to make a really good shot (for you) to park the hole. But that's just a theory.

[ck34]

There's an ad hoc committee of a handful of Gold level players here who question why some holes shouldn't be done for them. I'm sure they would prefer I put some holes where only they can reach them rather than put them far enough for good Blue level 2-shot throws. And frankly, that length makes for an easy second shot for them but not a deuce opp so it's not fun for them. But as we discussed before, you shouldn't be designing public holes/courses for just a handful of players in the state.

In general, we have rich terrain options in MN so these concerns don't come up often. With more trees and in the woods, length is usually less critical and starkly defines skill levels.

Check the chart for Blue level. Good Blue level 2-shot distance is from 475-575 in the wide open.

What's all this red white and blue and gold stuff? When did it pop up? It sounds like when you're a kid and they give you colored stars on your homework. Or like merrit badges or something. Black belt karate and purple hearts and green berets and blue cub scouts and green webelos and brownies and NYPD Blue.

Let's stick to ratings. You have 980 players and 880 players and 1030 players. Good enough.

[johnrhouck]

Check the chart for Blue level. Good Blue level 2-shot distance is from 475-575 in the wide open.

Then I suggest that we should revisit the chart. Since we made it, disc technology has improved, and we have the good driving data that you got in Houston.

The truth is that I rarely make even semi-open two-shot fairways shorter than 590'. Based on your data, the shortest Blue players drive 300'. I figure that if you can make two good accurate 300' shots, you should get a putt. And if that's as far as you can throw, you had better be extremely accurate (if you expect to compete as a pro).

I also believe in having one or two holes in the 375'-400' range on every course, space permitting. The guys who can throw that far deserve to be able to make up a stroke on the field. But they should have to be accurate to get it. The shorter throwers can throw a roller or make a long putt to get their birdie on those holes.

I'm sure some readers are thinking, "375'? 400'? All pros can throw that far." Well, the truth, my friends, is that a lot of people who claim to be able to throw 400' or 450' consistently are slightly mistaken. I'm not naming names...

[johnrhouck]

What's all this red white and blue and gold stuff? When did it pop up? It sounds like when you're a kid and they give you colored stars on your homework. Or like merrit badges or something. Black belt karate and purple hearts and green berets and blue cub scouts and green webelos and brownies and NYPD Blue.

Let's stick to ratings. You have 980 players and 880 players and 1030 players. Good enough.

Anne, you make a good point. But sometimes colors can be more fun than numbers. And you are kind of cute -- do you have an older sister?

Anyway, shouldn't you be out calling church groups? I did send you an e-mail this evening.

[ck34]

The driving data was what helped create the guidelines. Subsequent data has continued to confirm its accuracy and advancing disc technology hasn't changed it at this point based on the scores. A 600 ft open hole is OK for Gold but not Blue level if you want to get scoring spread. As long as there's moderate risk/reward with average to slightly less foliage, then 375-400 is fine for Blue level.

.Yeah I'll start calling curch groups now at 10:30 PM

[johnrhouck]

The driving data was what helped create the guidelines. Subsequent data has continued to confirm its accuracy and advancing disc technology hasn't changed it at this point based on the scores. A 600 ft open hole is OK for Gold but not Blue level if you want to get scoring spread.

I didn't come here looking for an argument, but I find that very hard to believe. What data do you have? Where is all Rodney's score data from Iowa?

As long as there's moderate risk/reward with average to slightly less foliage, then 375-400 is fine for Blue level.

I can't imagine that that can be right. I have all the scorecards from World Doubles this year, but most doubles scores are hard to work with. I can tell you this:

* Hole 8 on the Hill at Wimberley is 615'. It's fairly tight off the tee and slightly downhill. There are trees to whack the whole way, and it takes a really good drive to miss all the trees and avoid the pond. Going over the top is tough.

It's almost impossible to have a straight approach at the pin, and there are several small trees within 50'. So it plays A LOT tougher than an open 615' hole.

In Alternating Shot (essentially singles for our purposes), the top 12 teams produced six 3's, four 4's, a 5, and a circle 7. The threes came from Hammock/Climo, Landers/Burpee, Reading/Reading, Rendon/Siuda, Cunningham/Smith, and Grider/Bethman. There are a few Gold players in there, but not the majority. If a wide-open 600' hole is too long to get a spread of scores from Blue to Gold players, you certainly wouldn't expect to get a spread from a 615' moderately open hole.

* Then on hole #9, which is 365' and dead flat with nothing in the way (you will get in trouble if you go 30'-40' right, left, or deep), there were four 2's and eight 3's. The point being the even top pros don't have great accuracy at 365'. My memory is that it wasn't very windy, but I'll check on that.

* Meanwhile, out in San Saba, the Advanced guys played Best Disc (aka Best Score) on Strawbale #1. (For reference, there is a diagram and discussion of this hole in a recent DGWN). I would call this hole moderately open to moderately tight. It's 582' from the Blue tee. The top 12 teams produced six 3's and six 4's.

My calculations show that if they're getting a birdie (3) 50% of the time in Best Disc, they should be getting 3's about 30% of the time in regular singles. So it's a tough hole for them, but it will generate an acceptable spread of scores. Now these guys are not 975 players -- going into the tournament there were two below 900, three between 901 and 930, eleven between 931 and 940, five in the 940's, one at 951, one at 972, and one unrated.

(By the way, that was a very windy weekend, but I think it was pretty calm for the third round, which is where those scores comes from.)

So...if a 400' semi-open hole is a good two-shot hole for 975 players, this semi-tight 582' hole should be ridiculous for players 950 and below. But it's not at all.

And that's what your intuition would tell you. The overwheleming majority of Blue players can throw at least 300-350'. That would leave them with an upshot under 100', which they should never miss. In fact, I would consider any hole that leaves most players with an open (or even less than average) approach under 100' to be dumb on its face.

Am I missing something? If not, I guess I need to apologize for signing off on those guidelines. I must have been daydreaming about Anne's sister. Let's fix 'em.

[johnrhouck]

OK, one more quick bonus stat.

Meandering Greenbelt #11, in Best Shot, in high winds. Pretty darn open. You need to shank your drive pretty bad to get in trouble. Same with your approach. It's 592' from the Bues and dead flat. In the wind, it should have been brutal for our 950 and below competitors.

But they tore it up. Those same twelve teams above shot eight 3's and four 4's.

OK, maybe it was a strong downwind. Then hole #7 would have been 635' INTO a stiff headwindwind, with two very large trees to contend with on the approach. OB all along the right side. Should be darn near impossible for our heroes. But there were four 3's and eight 4's.

It seems clear to me that they would score very well on an open 600' hole with no wind. And again, that's what my intuition would tell me.

[ck34]

A 400' hole with average foliage shows up as 3.3-3.4 scoring average for Blue level players. That indicates a good scoring spread with 6-7 threes and 3-4 fours. Obviously, those blue players are not able to throw 300-350 when there's average foliage and some of their second throws may be from challenging positions.

I checked some data from Highbridge for something close. Hole 5 on Blueberry is 380', uphill 12 feet with slightly more than average foliage and some trouble off the fairway but no OB (you have the DVD). The effective length is 416 and the forecaster said the scoring average would be 3.58 for blue. The scores came out at 3.56 for a pool of 21 players who averaged the 950 blue rating.

I have many other examples and the forecaster is nailing the numbers when tested in the field, even with the new plastic. We'll have even more info this summer with larger fields of similarly rated players. There'll be lots of numbers to chew on next winter when you're watching the Vikes from your outpost in Buffalo.

[ck34]

It's 592' from the Bues and dead flat. In the wind, it should have been brutal for our 950 and below competitors. But they tore it up. Those same twelve teams above shot eight 3's and four 4's.

The forecaster says the individuals would average 3.6 on this hole. In doubles you'd expect 3.3 and I believe that's what you got. (FYI: Blue ranges from 974-925 averaging 950).

For the opposite direction, forecaster says about 4.0 for individuals with doubles coming in around 3.6-3.7 which is what you got again.

Doubles data is a little dicey to use for this but it seems like we're close here.

[johnrhouck]

A 400' hole with average foliage shows up as 3.3-3.4 scoring average for Blue level players. That indicates a good scoring spread with 6-7 threes and 3-4 fours. Obviously, those blue players are not able to throw 300-350 when there's average foliage and some of their second throws may be from challenging positions.

Fascinating. Maybe I'm using a bad definition of "average." I'm on my way out this morning and don't have time to look for it. Where is it? Or just: what is it?

I have many other examples and the forecaster is nailing the numbers when tested in the field, even with the new plastic. We'll have even more info this summer with larger fields of similarly rated players. There'll be lots of numbers to chew on next winter when you're watching the Vikes from your outpost in Buffalo.

OK, your football forecaster definitely needs to be fixed.

The good news is that it looks like I'll get to see Highbridge myself soon enough... as a marshal. Get all your effective 416' holes ready. I'm going to three them all... with my putter.

[ck34]

Harder is better, my personal opinion is that I wish every course was a par 64. With that said, the harder the course is the more casual players and am level golfers will stay away. I wish we could start making par 60's to 64 here in tuls because we have enough par 36's in town

[james_mccaine]

This thread is too wide. Who screwed it up.

Kevin, I always thought the same thing until Olse and Co.
designed a par 60somethingish at Circle C in Austin.
Apparently, it is all the rage. Even the hackers like it.
Long waits just to tee off. I still think that casuals
generally like pitchnputt, but apparently, they can be
atttracted to difficult courses also.

[underparmike]

"It's been my observation, but not scientific research, that top Gold level players (super pros) don't necessarily like courses designed to challenge their skills even though they may respect courses like Renny Gold and Winthrop Gold for tournament play."

Chuck you are way off on this one. I don't know who you talked to but every superpro i have ever talked about course design prefers longer & more challenging courses. BUT, as was said upthread, VARIETY is the most important aspect of any course design. short, long, left, right, tight, open,S curves, MIX IT UP!!! golf is not meant to be all par 3's or all 500 foot holes. That's what SuperPros like.

Don't make the mistake of designing a course like Snowbowl where every hole plays about 380. LaGrassa really showed how little he knows about course design lauding that course in the new DGWN. To take a mountain as sweet as Snowbowl and end up with no 2-shot holes is about as boneheaded as it gets.

So please, mix up your distances on this new course. a couple under 250, a few around 300, a couple 400 and a couple 500 or 600 or 7 or 8.

[Moderator005]

Don't make the mistake of designing a course like Snowbowl where every hole plays about 380. LaGrassa really showed how little he knows about course design lauding that course in the new DGWN. To take a mountain as sweet as Snowbowl and end up with no 2-shot holes is about as boneheaded as it gets.

I lauded the Snowbowl course for THE VIEWS. You could almost see the Grand Canyon from up there. But I guess you weren't admiring the view while you were busy looking for your disc in the woods, eh, douchebag?

[ck34]

Ginnelly wanted the design for Snowbowl to be more experiential than Gold level competitive. I had several 2-shot holes worked into the design when I was out there on behalf of the PDGA to assist with setting layouts for Pro Worlds. I was disappointed from a designer's standpoint with the results. On the other hand, I'm inclined to think Dan made the right call. With the abnormal challenge of the high altitude, players of all levels were physically tested more than perhaps is even appropriate for a Worlds competition. Making the course more difficult would have meant longer rounds and time on the hill by using the less efficient stagger start format than shotgun, and the weather issues may have become unresolvable. Players got the view and throw on hole 18 along with other scenic views for that design, which I believe most attendees felt enhanced their experience at Flagstaff.

If that design was done on a course at much lower altitude, I think I and several others may have squawked a little more that it was not challenging enough for world class play. The course for the Ams this year will be set at a little lower altitude but not enough to change the design approach to be any more challenging than the pros.

[Parkntwoputt]

Harder is better, my personal opinion is that I wish every course was a par 64. With that said, the harder the course is the more casual players and am level golfers will stay away. I wish we could start making par 60's to 64 here in tuls because we have enough par 36's in town

With no disrespect to Kevin, well maybe a little. I take major offense to what he states about keeping "am's" off the course by making it harder, aka Gold standard.

As an amateur player (lower blue level, although ratings don't show it) striving to be a Gold level 1000+ rated player I see the benefit of practicing and competing on these tougher more demanding courses. There is no better tests of your skills to go out and play and compete on one of these courses.

If Kevin is worried about some sub 950 rated player coming to an NT or Major and being on his card and bringing down his game he has nothing to worry about. I seriously doubt that an Am that low will be testing the waters in an event that big. The Am's at those events will be near pros and will not effect him or the other tourning pros.

I personally support making a course as challenging and rewarding as possible. I do not agree with one of our local designers that say there should be a route to the pin off the tee box. Make some landing zones and hazards that block the ace run.

Harder courses make for better players. But even though I choke on these words, I agree with Mike Kernan. All courses should have a mix of different levels of holes. All too hard or all too easy gets boring and the players do not get better.

"Hyzer bombs are the throws of the weak."

[gnduke]

If you read Kevin's post carefully, he is not talking about Am players, but casual players. We have a course or two in DFW I generally avoid because of the casual traffic. It's no fun to play a non-challenging course and have to wait on every tee.

And those players tend to stay away from the tougher, more demanding courses nearby.

[ck34]

This Blue/Gold issue is not about easy (lower par) versus tougher (higher par) courses, it's about holes being designed specifically to challenge a skill level whether Gold, Blue, White or Red. My premise is that many Gold level players will like to play Blue level courses perhaps more than Gold level courses, even if they are the same total length.

Let's say a designer is given identical acreage to develop a course. He designs a 9000' course using Gold level guidelines and also designs a 9000' course using Blue level guidelines. Both course layouts will have several par 4s and at least one par 5. I'm suggesting that for day-to-day play, many Gold level players may prefer to play the Blue level course than the Gold level course, even though the Gold level course is better for spreading their scores during competition.

I'm suggesting a reason is that Gold level players have fun breaking down the Blue level design parameters that allows them to turn Blue 3-shot holes into 2-shot holes for them or being able to reach some Blue 2-shot holes in one shot. It shouldn't be surprising because I think all players have fun doing this. I like being able to reach a Red level 2-shot hole in one shot.

The implications are that in places like Highbridge, NDGC and Renny where there are Gold courses next to challenging Blue level courses, it's possible your Blue level courses will be more popular for daily play even with Gold players. In a related comment, Stan indicates that the Rec players seem to love to play Renny and get brutalized by it more than the Advanced players who are more likley to play other courses like Kilbourne where they can demonstrate their expertise over a less challenging layout.

straight from the horses..uh mouth yeah that is it.....

With that said, the harder the course is the more casual players and am level golfers will stay away.

makes you feel a warm inside don't it