Chadk3878
Mar 25 2008, 10:22 PM
I recently heard that Baskets can not be placed within 10 feet of an out of bounds line. Is this true? If so where can I find this ruling or regulation?

cgkdisc
Mar 25 2008, 10:59 PM
There is no requirement. If OB is close within 20 ft behind the basket, it becomes just a fluky penalty shot since most will be able to make the comebacker. Better if OB is more than 30 ft behind basket so comebacker is more of a tester. On the front side, at least allow 15-20 feet for daily play. If the playing surface by the basket is something like sand on hole 6 at Winthrop, it can be OK to get the OB on the front side even within 10 ft for elite divisions in tournaments.

Chadk3878
Mar 25 2008, 11:58 PM
Well we have this course here in Boiling Springs. Hole #14. Here is the basic hole layout. It's about a 300-350ft hole. You have a retention pond in front of the basket. The basket sits on a ledge with a down slope behind the basket. At the bottom of the slope is a creek. The basket to the creek is a good 50-75ft. The creek does not come into play too much unless you really overshoot the basket. The OB that I had in play was in front of the basket. Basically it goes all around the top of the retention pond. There is a slope of 15-20ft leading down to the pond. I had an OB line running at the top of the pond which comes to within 7-8ft of the basket. You have two tees to this hole. Long tee allows you to shoot across giving you a risk reward, or you lay up and then go across for an easier 3. The short pad lets you go straight across for a possible 2 or easy 3. The OB line comes into play for the risk reward shots and comebackers if you go pass the basket. What is your take on this OB line? If I need to clarify anything let me know.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 12:20 AM
I would say that the slope needs to be taken into consideration meaning more room should be provided, the sharper the slope so players have a chance to land safely. One key thing different in our sport versus BG in this matter is the fact we have to throw the disc high enough to hole out whereas a ball is at ground level and a miss left or right can still have the proper amount of energy to stop hole high and not roll past.

Our "good" misses slightly left or right that barely have enough height to hole out are still going to go past the basket no matter how high the loft on the putt. We need to take that into consideration and provide sufficiently decent overflight landing zones for players to not get an additional penalty shot for "good misses." When you already encourage players to play long on risk/reward shots to the green, it's unfair to then penalize their apporpriately safe play with too brutal of a comeback putt when they played the approach as well as possible per your design.

bruce_brakel
Mar 26 2008, 12:41 AM
I disagree. Knowing when to go for a shot and when to play safe is part of the game, and a better part of the game at that. Watch any golf tournament on TV and you'll see players routinely aiming for parts of the green where the pin isn't on some holes because they are shooting for a safe landing area. The pin is right near a slope that will run their ball 70 feet away if they land there.

There's nothing wrong with course design that rewards a player for playing within his skill set and punishes another player for thinking he is Dave Feldberg. The more severe the punishment, the more a player should think about his options. Thinking golf -- good.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 12:59 AM
Not sure what you disagree with? In ball golf, playing safe means you've positioned yourself for par versus an aggressive shot at birdie. There's no OB on ball golf greens and it's rare there's a pin placement where the runaway putt after playing safe can go into water/OB for daily play. In disc golf, we have the new concept to create a buncr instead of OB area as a better type of hazard close to pins that doesn't immediately cost a penalty, much like a slope on one side of a ball golf hole.

davidsauls
Mar 26 2008, 09:43 AM
Too theoretical for me. In practice, I find some baskets perched close to OB to be exciting, depending on the layout. I have 2 on my private course; in a survey after a recent event, an overwhelming majority found them "cool and exciting" over "too close to OB". These holes are virtually unreachable with drives, so it's upshots & putts in which the close OB comes into play.

Even when OB is close to basket, it's only a gimme putt-after-OB if the lie-after-OB is along a small section of the OB.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 09:51 AM
Even when OB is close to basket, it's only a gimme putt-after-OB if the lie-after-OB is along a small section of the OB.



And that's the problem. The difference between a player getting a penalty or not is more luck than definable skill (similar to problem with 2m penalty). Using a buncr, where the lie is moved away on the LOP from the pin if you land in it, is superior to OB for hazards down to 10 feet in front of the pin or 20 feet behind it.

davidsauls
Mar 26 2008, 09:53 AM
Basket close to OB is not that much different than basket on steep downhill slope. A flyby putt most often ends up costing 2 strokes, unless player makes a long saving comeback. In either case player can just plop disc at foot of basket and save the risk.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 09:55 AM
Buncr is still better than OB and emulates the ball golf rollaway which doesn't automatically cost a penalty instantly. The "save" is still possible. It's more fair, less fluky and punitive.

MTL21676
Mar 26 2008, 10:02 AM
Please explain to me what is fair about having to move your lie further from the basket?

If I throw in the buncr 15 feet from the basket and someone throws to the edge of the buncr 40 feet from the basket, why should I have the same putt as them? How is that fair for me to take the same putt as someone who I just threw a better shot than?

xterramatt
Mar 26 2008, 10:13 AM
I Concr. Buncrs ar crny.

xterramatt
Mar 26 2008, 10:14 AM
Hey MTL, there's a Buncr at the Pro Crosstown.

Can you tell me where?

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 10:21 AM
How is that fair for me to take the same putt as someone who I just threw a better shot than?


If you land in the buncr, it's not a better shot. It's a less punitive way than putting OB right next to the pin which automatically costs a penalty. It's a way to create a more challenging green where you try to land on one side of the basket versus the other similar to a ball golf green with a rollaway slope on one side of the hole where you want to land on the other side. Using OB is a sloppier way to to create risk/reward in comparison to the buncr which operates more like a slope or tree lined fairway which causes tougher shots but not necessarily a penalty if you make a save shot.

MTL21676
Mar 26 2008, 10:38 AM
Hey MTL, there's a Buncr at the Pro Crosstown.

Can you tell me where?



Yeah but that is not there b/c we want it to be there. The parks required it to be there due to errosion on the hill, totally different scenario than tjust randomly placing one. Trust me, if we didn't have to have it, it wouldn't be there.

MTL21676
Mar 26 2008, 10:39 AM
I will agree that a buncr near a green is a better option then OB. Of course, peeing in your pants is better than pooping in them, but that doesn't mean that peeing in your pants is good.

xterramatt
Mar 26 2008, 10:41 AM
ok, that was pretty funny. I saw a toddler with a turd tail the other day, and it was definitely funnier than wet pants.

gotcha
Mar 26 2008, 11:09 AM
Buncr is still better than OB and emulates the ball golf rollaway which doesn't automatically cost a penalty instantly. The "save" is still possible. It's more fair, less fluky and punitive.



One could also say this type of bunker emulates a sand trap in traditional golf. I like the concept, particularly if the design is created around less challenging greens. That's not to say well-designed greens cannot incorporate OB (or both, for that matter). I'm not crazy about the coined term "buncr", however, as it does does not make sense to anyone unfamiliar with the term. My preference would be to simply label the design concept as a "casual relief bunker" or "CR bunker". What's the abbreviation for an OB bunker? :D

davidsauls
Mar 26 2008, 11:50 AM
Buncr is still better than OB and emulates the ball golf rollaway which doesn't automatically cost a penalty instantly. The "save" is still possible. It's more fair, less fluky and punitive.



I'm not a fan of emulating ball golf. We can look to ball golf for ideas that would improve disc golf, but go our own way when preferable. Scary putts are, to my my taste, preferable.

I don't find OB 10' from a basket fluky. Good shot (made putt) rewarded, bad shot (missed putt) penalized....just more penalty than on other holes, but you know that before you throw. The upshot that sails 40' past the basket is only slightly different if OB is there---you take a stroke form OB and have an easy putt, or you have a long putt and take a stroke unless you can it, which turns out to be the same score for most players.

I remain a big fan of "fun" in disc golf design. I love holes that are fun to play, and courses that are fun to play, regardless of theoretical considerations of score spread, etc. My definition of fluky is a hole in which well-thrown shots and poorly-thrown shots produce the same random results....and I don't find OB near a basket to meet that definition.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 12:23 PM
A Park & Rec study indicated that the higher the skill level players were in a sport, the more they preferred skill versus luck aspects in the rules or design of the sport. Rec players like the lucky aspects because it occasionally gave them a chance to beat a better player if luck was on their side. Doing course design is partly a balancing act between those elements. What you do day-to-day may be different from a tournament setup partly for that reason.

accidentalROLLER
Mar 26 2008, 01:46 PM
A Park & Rec study indicated that the higher the skill level players were in a sport, the more they preferred skill versus luck aspects in the rules or design of the sport.


source?

Vanessa
Mar 26 2008, 02:05 PM
I don't find OB 10' from a basket fluky. ... My definition of fluky is a hole in which well-thrown shots and poorly-thrown shots produce the same random results....and I don't find OB near a basket to meet that definition.



This coming from the proprietor of Hole 18 at Stoney Hill ?!? :)

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 02:12 PM
source?


I'll see if I can find it. A course design member posted it a year or two ago to our Yahoo group.

davidsauls
Mar 26 2008, 02:31 PM
I don't find OB 10' from a basket fluky. ... My definition of fluky is a hole in which well-thrown shots and poorly-thrown shots produce the same random results....and I don't find OB near a basket to meet that definition.



This coming from the proprietor of Hole 18 at Stoney Hill ?!? :)



Touche.

Clearly a matter of skill....I'm poorly skilled, and you saw me 5-putt that sucker on Sunday !!! WITHOUT going OB, mind you. (Though this is the reason we've put a barrier to minimize putts sliding or rolling into the Quarry. We're trying to get grass on the mound so layups will, well, lay up. We'll probably flatten the top a bit, too). For what it's worth, survey was overhwelmingly "thrilling" over "gimmicky", though I was concerned with the latter when we put it there.

In my experience the biggest "luck" factor we deal with is trees on wooded courses....including my own. Virtually the same shots hit the same trees, some kick into fairway, some kick away into terrible lies. It's not like anyone was aiming to hit the "correct" side of the tree. Much flukier than OB near basket. To me, anyway.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 02:37 PM
In my experience the biggest "luck" factor we deal with is trees on wooded courses....including my own. Virtually the same shots hit the same trees, some kick into fairway, some kick away into terrible lies.


However, the player is not immediately dinged with a penalty. They have the opportunity to make a save shot from a bad kick. That's the idea behind the buncr for holes and courses that aren't blessed with much elevation or trees. If you land in the buncr you also don't get an immediate penalty. You have the chance to make a save shot. With OB, much of the chance to demonstrate your 'save' skills are taken away.

davidsauls
Mar 26 2008, 02:51 PM
In my experience the biggest "luck" factor we deal with is trees on wooded courses....including my own. Virtually the same shots hit the same trees, some kick into fairway, some kick away into terrible lies.


However, the player is not immediately dinged with a penalty. They have the opportunity to make a save shot from a bad kick. That's the idea behind the buncr for holes and courses that aren't blessed with much elevation or trees. If you land in the buncr you also don't get an immediate penalty. You have the chance to make a save shot. With OB, much of the chance to demonstrate your 'save' skills are taken away.



Topics diverged here. If you're talking about "luck", trees are worse than OB close to basket. If you're talking about chance for a "save", it depends on the layout of the OB near basket, versus whatever alternatives there were.

By the way, I think buncr is a great idea, though better if renamed, and there are good places for both casual relief and OB, even near greens. And places they shouldn't be used.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 03:00 PM
If you're talking about "luck", trees are worse than OB close to basket.


I disagree. If a tree is "lucky" then it probably shouldn't be there in the first place. I know if Dave D reads this he'll get on the soapbox with me. If a tree splits a fairway, the opening on one or the other side or both sides should be proper fairway width. If the tree is dividing a fairway so the gap on each side is smaller than what that skill level can hit at least 2/3 of the time, the tree should go.

For OB close to pins, way more chance for fluky OB with good shots because we have to loft putts unlike ball golf and more importantly, we have the unfortunate weirdness of hitting metal on "almost good" putts and rolling away OB. If there were a barrier that prevented a disc from rolling OB, I would be more in favor of closer OB versus using the buncr option in its place.

MTL21676
Mar 26 2008, 03:34 PM
[We're trying to get grass on the mound so layups will, well, lay up.



To me one of the most frustrating things is when I make the right choice, execute it, and then have the disc roll away. It really really upsets me.

That is just unlucky in my eye.

Lyle O Ross
Mar 26 2008, 03:48 PM
If you're talking about "luck", trees are worse than OB close to basket.


I disagree. If a tree is "lucky" then it probably shouldn't be there in the first place. I know if Dave D reads this he'll get on the soapbox with me. If a tree splits a fairway, the opening on one or the other side or both sides should be proper fairway width. If the tree is dividing a


fairway so the gap on each side is smaller than what that skill level can hit at least 2/3 of the time, the tree should go.

For OB close to pins, way more chance for fluky OB with good shots because we have to loft putts unlike ball golf and more importantly, we have the unfortunate weirdness of hitting metal on "almost good" putts and rolling away OB. If there were a barrier that prevented a disc from rolling OB, I would be more in favor of closer OB versus using the buncr option in its place.



As usual, I'm confused, I thought if you missed your putt and rolled OB, you could reputt from your previous lie? If this is true, missing your putt is missing your putt and OB is irrelevant. Chuck, correct me if I'm wrong.

Lyle O Ross
Mar 26 2008, 03:54 PM
[We're trying to get grass on the mound so layups will, well, lay up.



To me one of the most frustrating things is when I make the right choice, execute it, and then have the disc roll away. It really really upsets me.

That is just unlucky in my eye.



I might argue that you didn't "execute it," providing of course that you "made" the right choice. If you executed it, your disc would be in the basket. :D

Americans are particularly prone to this. When something goes wrong, we want to believe there was some other force than ourselves involved. Generally, when I miss a putt, whether it is a bounce out, cut through, nip off the nub, wind blown etc., I'm willing to admit that I could have made a better throw that would have put the disc in the basket, had I more skill/knowledge/patience.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 04:02 PM
As usual, I'm confused, I thought if you missed your putt and rolled OB, you could reputt from your previous lie? If this is true, missing your putt is missing your putt and OB is irrelevant.



Whether you reputt from the previous lie or from 1m in from OB, it's still a 1-throw penalty for shots that probably weren't bad enough to "deserve" the additional OB penalty beyond just missing. It's a matter of providing proportional penalties relative to how bad a throw may be that's the essence of good risk/reward design. The buncr is a new option that fills the gap for less of a penalty than OB for shots that were near misses and bad luck rollaways versus yanks that likely "deserved" the extra penalty.

davidsauls
Mar 26 2008, 04:09 PM
If you're talking about "luck", trees are worse than OB close to basket.


I disagree. If a tree is "lucky" then it probably shouldn't be there in the first place. I know if Dave D reads this he'll get on the soapbox with me. If a tree splits a fairway, the opening on one or the other side or both sides should be proper fairway width. If the tree is dividing a fairway so the gap on each side is smaller than what that skill level can hit at least 2/3 of the time, the tree should go.

For OB close to pins, way more chance for fluky OB with good shots because we have to loft putts unlike ball golf and more importantly, we have the unfortunate weirdness of hitting metal on "almost good" putts and rolling away OB. If there were a barrier that prevented a disc from rolling OB, I would be more in favor of closer OB versus using the buncr option in its place.



Trees bring luck into play. Where, as you say, the players of a skill level can't hit the gap 2/3 of the time, it is an inordinate amount of luck, and the hole is fluky (in my opinion) and bad (in my opinion). In other cases---trees with an acceptable gap, or trees on edge of fairway----good shots are fine, bad shots may be rewarded or punished, as a matter of luck (which way the disc kicks off the tree). If you dare to throw near the tree, you risk those odds. I can live with that kind of luck.

With basket near OB, good putts are fine (they go in), bad putts may roll OB and be punished. On longer putts, you can go for it and risk the odds of OB, or just lay up under the basket. I can live with that kind of luck.

(In my own very specific case----my private course---we've just installed a barrier to minimize the rollaway effect on one hole. If you miss the entire basket and sail into OB, tough. I should say, when "I" miss the whole basket and sail OB...)

OB near the basket, or casual relief, also plays out differently if it's in front of the basket, beyind the basket, or to one side.

Lyle O Ross
Mar 26 2008, 04:15 PM
There is no requirement. If OB is close within 20 ft behind the basket, it becomes just a fluky penalty shot since most will be able to make the comebacker. Better if OB is more than 30 ft behind basket so comebacker is more of a tester. On the front side, at least allow 15-20 feet for daily play. If the playing surface by the basket is something like sand on hole 6 at Winthrop, it can be OK to get the OB on the front side even within 10 ft for elite divisions in tournaments.



I disagree with Chuck on this. I don't see this as a fluky comebacker, I see it as a missed putt that cost you an OB stroke. Yes, the comeback is made but you've still got that OB stoke.

What makes a golfer great is the ability to plan and strategise (that spelling can't be right). A good golfer will look at that situation, weigh the risk of missing, and make the appropriate putt/upshot. If you take the risk and you fail, you should have known your odds. Scott Stokley used a number method to determine what he should do. If he felt he could make the shot 3 out of 10, 4 out of 10 etc. Then he'd do a rough calculation of the penalty etc. to determine what he should do.

You will notice that you rarely hear the top Pros complain about stuff like this. I'm guessing that they view everything pretty much as fair and then understand that you have to plan to take the safest most profitable route through the hole.

Lyle O Ross
Mar 26 2008, 04:32 PM
As usual, I'm confused, I thought if you missed your putt and rolled OB, you could reputt from your previous lie? If this is true, missing your putt is missing your putt and OB is irrelevant.



Whether you reputt from the previous lie or from 1m in from OB, it's still a 1-throw penalty for shots that probably weren't bad enough to "deserve" the additional OB penalty beyond just missing. It's a matter of providing proportional penalties relative to how bad a throw may be that's the essence of good risk/reward design. The buncr is a new option that fills the gap for less of a penalty than OB for shots that were near misses and bad luck rollaways versus yanks that likely "deserved" the extra penalty.



While I understand the gist of what you're saying Chuck, on an emotional level I'd still disagree. On the other hand, I'd be a proponent of measuring such things and crunching the the numbers to make a decision on whether the set up was bad or not.

Hole 14 at the Willy in Houston is on the side of a steep hill. I see guys take huge chances on this hole all the time... and pay. Logic would tell you that a layup was the proper approach and yet I rarely see this. People want to call it a bad hole, but what it is, is a hole that takes careful planning.

Hole 9 is similar with a steep drop off into a bayou at about 6 feet out from the back of the basket. I've seen more strokes added to scores on this hole than I can believe. Knowing your limitations allows you to take that four instead of the five or six that comes with going for it. Inevitably, the players I see who take that four whip up on those who go for it. Primarily because the cautious approach they take plays out through the entire round and pays off for them.

BTW - people often argue that a Pro's opinion should count for more in discussions here. I've been a proponent that anyone should have a valid opinion. In this case, I can see how the valid opinion of a Pro should carry weight. I'm guessing most Pros would see these shots as significantly less than those who take a less thoughtful approach. On the other hand, I don't know and would be curious to see how Barry, Ken, or some other would view this.

davidsauls
Mar 26 2008, 04:55 PM
I recently heard that Baskets can not be placed within 10 feet of an out of bounds line. Is this true? If so where can I find this ruling or regulation?



Chuck's first answer---"There is no requirement"---covers it, though I've heard this cited as a "rule", also, though as much as 10 meters given. Beyond that....if you do it, be forwarned that some players will like it, some will complain. As evidenced by the opinions posted here.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 04:57 PM
In a perfect environment, penalties would be in proportion to how bad a shot is. In addition, various types of penalties should be matched in terms of their value. In other words, OB, missing a mando and 2m are all a 1-shot penalty with the implication that all involve roughly equivalently equally bad throws. The objection with those who dislike the 2m penalty stems partly from the thought that a 2m penalty is less of a "bad" throw than OB or missed mando.

In the simplest example, a shorter throw in an open field is "worse" than a longer throw on a par 4. The penalty is a longer upshot. The longer the upshot, the tougher the next throw. Actual stats indicate that every 30 feet longer results in a 0.1 increase in scoring average. Now that's proportional.

When a penalty is involved, it means a step change of a full 1-throw in the score, not just 0.1 per 30 ft. So, the lack of quality in a throw that merits a 1.0 jump in score should be significantly worse than a 300 ft shorter throw, using the 0.1 per 30 ft as an admittedly exaggerated comparison. Likewise, the lack of quality shouldn't be significantly affected by lucky aspects, or at least they should be minimized in the design decision.

Maybe this seems too analytical for the game of disc golf. But if you really want to discuss design from the standpoint of weaker versus better decisions, then this "under the hood" analysis is necessary to make the game as fair as possible and reflect the risk/reward aspects as well as possible. Luck can never be taken out of the game. But tempering its effects where designers specifically make decisions that can minimize its impact should be considered.

Lyle O Ross
Mar 26 2008, 05:13 PM
In a perfect environment, penalties would be in proportion to how bad a shot is. In addition, various types of penalties should be matched in terms of their value. In other words, OB, missing a mando and 2m are all a 1-shot penalty with the implication that all involve roughly equivalently equally bad throws. The objection with those who dislike the 2m penalty stems partly from the thought that a 2m penalty is less of a "bad" throw than OB or missed mando.

In the simplest example, a shorter throw in an open field is "worse" than a longer throw on a par 4. The penalty is a longer upshot. The longer the upshot, the tougher the next throw. Actual stats indicate that every 30 feet longer results in a 0.1 increase in scoring average. Now that's proportional.

When a penalty is involved, it means a step change of a full 1-throw in the score, not just 0.1 per 30 ft. So, the lack of quality in a throw that merits a 1.0 jump in score should be significantly worse than a 300 ft shorter throw, using the 0.1 per 30 ft as an admittedly exaggerated comparison. Likewise, the lack of quality shouldn't be significantly affected by lucky aspects, or at least they should be minimized in the design decision.

Maybe this seems too analytical for the game of disc golf. But if you really want to discuss design from the standpoint of weaker versus better decisions, then this "under the hood" analysis is necessary to make the game as fair as possible and reflect the risk/reward aspects as well as possible. Luck can never be taken out of the game. But tempering its effects where designers specifically make decisions that can minimize its impact should be considered.



Good argument Chuck.

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 05:36 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Park & Rec study indicated that the higher the skill level players were in a sport, the more they preferred skill versus luck aspects in the rules or design of the sport.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


source?



www.nrpa.org/content/default.aspx?documentId=787 (http://www.nrpa.org/content/default.aspx?documentId=787)
This article got our designers group off on the tangent discussing skill versus luck elements in recreational game design.

davidsauls
Mar 26 2008, 05:51 PM
Do you have a statistical formula for "fun"?

That "perfect environment" sounds rather boring!

All these are valid considerations, and a lot of what you and others who debate course design have said runs through my head as our course evolves. And yet....the courses I've most enjoyed playing and most wish to play again don't fully adhere to these theoretical principles.

I want a hole to be interesting and challenging and, when I stand on the teepad, to be uncertain what score I'll get, with the uncertainty dependent primarily on my decisions and execution, not luck. I want a course to have 18 such holes and good variety, and if one or two involves putts or approaches made exciting by close OB, that's fine too.

MTL21676
Mar 26 2008, 05:55 PM
Chuck,

You can give every reason in the world about the buncr and support it and that is fine. I garuntee that more than half of the field at the worlds this year did not like it.

A shot that is 15 feet from the basket should not be the same as one 40 feet from the basket!

tiltedhalo
Mar 26 2008, 05:56 PM
I think a lot of the debate of luck vs. planning is related to players not practicing on a course to learn what the real odds are on various routes.

I am thinking of Hole 12 at Hawk Hollow in VA, where the hole is probably 350 feet, slightly right and 20' elevated from the teebox. There is an OB fence on the left, a stream on the right, trees on both sides, and a ceiling of branches about 25' up, and the only wide, clearly defined alley is an S-curve that starts out flexing right, then flexes back left uphill to get to the basket. From the teebox, it is tempting to throw a shot out over the stream on the right, because that appears to offer a RHBH hyzer route to the basket. If you've never played the hole, this route looks like it might work 2/3 of the time. However, if you actually try throwing it a few times, you realize that it probably only works 1/4 -- and all the other times you take an OB stroke, and still have a tough throw to save a circle-4. If you only threw the hole a few times, you might think you have bad luck if you go in the water, when -- in reality -- you are letting visual appearances define your risk/reward expectations rather than learning from experience.

An experienced player will tell you to play that hole with a flippy disc, and put an anhyzer down the alley to the base of the open alley up the hill, giving an 80' uphill putt, taking a likely three instead of risking the OB. There are a few other holes out at Hawk Hollow where the streams look like you can go out over the, but experience teaches that there are more tiny branches than you can see, and they will all send you straight into the water. It's not luck -- its just experience.

I think a similar principle is true on most holes with lots of roll-aways. A person with a lot of experience on a particular hole prone to roll-aways will consider the slope of the hole, the angle of approach, and throw the disc and shot least likely to roll away.

The one other consideration that has been raised is skill level -- think of hole two at Renaissance Gold, the elevated basket 6" from a 35' vertical dropoff. That is a GREAT hole -- one of the most exciting holes I know of. But it isn't fair to a low-level player -- many of whom probably don't have the skill to make the elevated putt even if they try to play it safe and layup the disc right by the basket. There is no guaranteed way to play safe if you are below a certain skill level -- the putt just becomes luck.

However, for a blue/gold level player, the putt is fantastic. If you're 35' away, you have the option of laying up for a second putt you'll make 9/10, or you can run the long putt, knowing that it will you at least a stroke if you miss.

Much of the "luck" factor goes away on many holes as the skill level increases -- this goes for tough putts, tight fairways, over-the-pond shots, etc...

haroldduvall
Mar 26 2008, 05:58 PM
Dear Chad �
There�s no rule, and I think it�s good that you�ve marked the OB at the top of the detention ponds. Having the OB there should reduce the number of shots landing in a semi-nasty spot. I think you are good to go to play it as is.

You could also use a buncr, but then you would need to determine where the OB ends and the buncr begins and where to place the drop zone. Ironically, these determinations could lead to the same kind of marginal unfairness the buncr is designed to eliminate.

You could also adjust the OB line near the target so that it drops down the pond side of the slope. This would tend to reduce the number of bounce offs that end up going OB. This might work nicely in concert with some stones or logs to catch the rollers before the reach the very bottom.

I am glad to see the progress at Va-Du-Mar.

Take care,
Harold

tkieffer
Mar 26 2008, 06:04 PM
In a perfect environment, penalties would be in proportion to how bad a shot is.



I don't buy into this. Our cousin, ball golf, will penalize rather extremely a shot that is 5 feet further than another using things like pot hole bunkers and the like (British Open). Two shots, both bad (in the bunker), one only slightly worse, but the penalty is so different that one has to be played backwards while the other can still be played towards the hole. Same with sloped greens that will catch a ball and roll it into the water hazard if the player misplays and gets caught in it. The 'Tin Cup' scenario.

Of course, knowing that the potential extreme penalty in such a case exists, the player can take the approach of avoiding the trap area at all costs. Go around instead of trying to go over and so on. We can do some of the same, and I don't see where the penalty necessarily has to be linear to the 'badness' of the throw. After all, isn�t OB in general non-proportional where a shot 1 inch to the left of another may be one shot better just because of where the line falls?

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 06:06 PM
A shot that is 15 feet from the basket should not be the same as one 40 feet from the basket!


I agree. That's why landing 15 feet away on any side other than than buncr was better than 40 feet away on all sides. And that's why the buncr wasn't OB. The normal approach before buncrs might have been to make it OB area. Less happier players and too much penalty for the "crime." No buncr, and the hole plays as a par 2. I can understand why half the players might not want a buncr that makes them work harder for a 2 on a 250 ft hole. How hard do you have to work for 2 on Winthrop 17 at the same length?

cgkdisc
Mar 26 2008, 06:22 PM
I don't buy into this. Our cousin, ball golf, will penalize rather extremely a shot that is 5 feet further than another using things like pot hole bunkers and the like (British Open).


They don't do them on the green nor do you find 1-shot penalty hazards on them. Rollaways 'yes' with the rare scenario for the possibility to roll completely off the green into OB say at the Masters, not daily play.

There's no need to shoot toward those nasty pot bunkers. They are also a rarity in the sport since most greenside sand bunkers allow for potential save shots with only a bit more challenge than being in the first or second cut around a green. They have few vertical hazards on those pot bunker courses and that's what they need to use to provide any semblance of risk/reward.

Had the buncr concept been involved in the early development of our sport, they would have been seen as the logical equivalent of sand traps in ball golf. We can't really emulate the way sand traps work because we stand on the lie and don't play from the lie. Wooded fairways sort of work like sand traps but not every coure is blessed with that option. Our early game developers opted for the 1-shot penalty or more for all hazards. But I suspect Steady Ed would have embraced the buncr (maybe not the spelling) for its proportional penalty characteristics.

Penalty plus distance is an even worse element becoming more common in our sport in places where its unnecessarily punitive. That's fodder for its own thread.

tkieffer
Mar 26 2008, 06:42 PM
Your original post I quoted didn't state 'greens'. But at the top levels and even lesser levels, yes you can get caught in a bad area on a green where the slope will dump you into a water hazard or bunker, resulting in a harsh penalty that may have been avoided if your dimpled ball stopped one foot shorter. The penalty is not necessarily linear to the percentage of error in the shot. And in my mind, that's not bad. Like you said, you don't have to go into those areas, even if they represent a shorter path from shot to basket.

gotcha
Mar 27 2008, 01:07 PM
Check out the placement for this (http://www.discin.net/index.html) basket.

davidsauls
Mar 27 2008, 01:17 PM
Pretty challenging....especially if the tee is across the water...

Chadk3878
Mar 29 2008, 12:02 PM
Can I get a good definition of what a buncr is? Also what are good ways to create a buncr?

cgkdisc
Mar 29 2008, 01:06 PM
A buncr is a marked area which works like Casual Relief (thus the cr in the buncr spelling). There are two primary types. The first is placed near a pin. Typically, it might be kidney shaped located about 10 ft from the pin, 20-25 ft wide and maybe 30 ft long. When a player lands in it, they must relocate their lie on the line of play from the basket back to the edge of the buncr. There's no penalty other than a longer putt. The idea is to emulate the ball golf construct where one side of the hole on the green has enough slope that the ball will roll away if the hole is approached from that direction. We use blue flags to mark the boundary and actually making it a sand trap enhances the effect.

The other type of buncr is typically on a par 4 or 5 hole and placed just past the ideal landing area for the drive on the left, right or even middle of the fairway. This buncr can be much larger in both width and length. If a player lands in the buncr, they go to a defined drop zone. There's no penalty. However, the drop zone is typically positioned maybe 15-20 feet behind a tree so the player is forced to make a hyzer or anhyzer throw versus a shorter more wide open shot had they been able to play from where they landed in the buncr. The idea here is to provide a method to add more challenge to holes in places where there aren't enough trees or maybe they are young and not much hazard.

The overall idea for buncrs is to introduce some course design elements that add challenge but aren't as punitive as OB. They perfom similar to how sand traps are intended to work in ball golf - more challenge but still the opportunity to make a save with a good to great shot.

hazard
Mar 30 2008, 04:54 PM
As has been stated, I am fairly certain there is no rule about it. That said, I do personally think that any course designer who places OB (or any kind of penalty zone) within 10m of a basket on a blind hole and does not make sure it is well-indicated on the tee sign ought to be slapped with some kind of fish.