Heading thru Kalamazoo tomorrow morning and planned to stop and play a course. I've heard about Cold Brook "brutality" but Morris looks like it might be nice. Any suggestions?

Oshtemo or Robert Morris. Both are great courses :D

Millz giving Kennedy advice....now there's a concept. :D:D:D

Millz giving Kennedy advice....now there's a concept.



:eek: :eek: :eek:

Maybe if some people were willing to listen MillZ would give more advice :eek:

Chuck,

Which courses did you visit? Coldbrook is one of my favorite courses in the nation. It's very tight, very accurate, and can be punishing if you get off of a fairway. The only bad hole on that 24 hole design is hole 9. That is more luck than skill.

The others are all nice and very different from Coldbrook. Sandy Point and Coldbrook are very similar so if you like one, you'll like the other.

PS - Flagstaff to Minnesota doesn't usually involve a stop near K-Zoo - are you lost?

...

I drove back to Toledo to be with family after Pro Worlds and flew to Flagstaff from Detroit and back before driving home. Played two Michigan courses and was let down as seems to be the case there. More later.

Only one of these two courses is in K-zoo. I hope course P is still in development, but it's probably not with cement tee pads already. It will likely get one of the lowest Design scores in the new PDGA Course Eval process. In all seriousness, it could be used as a lab to illustrate course design mistakes. Here are the ones I can remember:

- Several baskets too close to bushes
- Several blind baskets
- Walking back on the fairway just played to next tee
- Walking back to the tee on the next fairway and blindly emerging onto it from previous fairway.
- Several undefined fairways
- Several "ways" but not fairways
- Discs can't fly the way the intended route is defined
- Several way too tight "routes"
- Some pins too close to next tees and fairways too close to other fairways
- Walking across another fairway from one pin to next tee
- Safety issue with route over shelter
- Tee pads shouldn't have been poured until some of these issues could be dealt with.

Course M has these issues:
- Unnecessary number of blind holes (13 of 18)
- Several improper hole lengths for intended player/route
- Ill-defined alternate tees
- Pinball fairways on several holes on front nine
- Park road behind blind approach on one hole
- A few baskets too close to bushes
- Walking back up the next fairway to tee
- The park is nicely manicured and course is tolerable, but not when paying a park fee

Chuck,

I hate to play dumb but I don't know which courses you are referring to. I don't know if anyone else cares even about this thread but I would certainly be interested to hear which course is which. (I'm sure I'm missing some obvious references with your P and M).

M sounds a lot like Robert Morris. I can think of examples of most of that out there, but I can't count the blind holes in my head. I think some of your "design flaws" are just a matter of preference. Some would argue that large vacant putting areas are boring and lame. A course design that forces you to place your upshot or else be stuck with a bad lie is more interesting in my view. And I don't know how a hole length can be "improper." Is every hole supposed to be deuce or die? Most of the rest seems like valid criticism.

I'm guessing the P is Kimble Pines but I'm just guessing. I don't know Kimble Pines at all except by reputation.

On the design flaw issue I would add that for some reason really good players get more birdies and pars on "pinball fairways" than sucky players. Sucky players like me say, "That hole is just luck," and then a decent player like Brett says, "And Barry Schultz is just luckier than the rest of us?"

I think a course full of pinball holes like the original 18 at Coldbrook gets monotonous, but a pinball hole here and there is not necessarily a design flaw.

O.k., I'm done being defensive about Chuck's criticism of Michigan courses. :cool:

I think some of your "design flaws" are just a matter of preference. Some would argue that large vacant putting areas are boring and lame.

- Bushes next to baskets where there's no shot (not just a different type of putt) 10 feet away are not good. I fully support obstacles on and around greens as long as there's some sort of airway to the basket even if you have to stretch out wide left or right or go over the top.

A course design that forces you to place your upshot or else be stuck with a bad lie is more interesting in my view. And I don't know how a hole length can be "improper."
- Improper length has to do with the skill level of the player a tee is designed for. The lengths on some holes were a shot and a half to the pin, too long to reach but not long enough to make the upshot challenging. Or, the tee shot was so constricted that the average shot could only get so far such that the upshot was trivial.

On the design flaw issue I would add that for some reason really good players get more birdies and pars on "pinball fairways" than sucky players. Sucky players like me say, "That hole is just luck," and then a decent player like Brett says, "And Barry Schultz is just luckier than the rest of us?"

- Better players deal with pinball holes better than lesser players. However, it's not good when luck separates those of the same skill level and that's the problem. In theory, the luck should average out among two players of the same skill after playing the same hole 20 times. But you only play the hole perhaps twice in an event or once in a casual round so luck has an inordinate and unfair effect on the current outcome.

Your implication regarding pinball holes, carried further, would be that no clearing of fairways is ever required because there's no "fair" minimum fairway width that's appropriate for any skill level. The only reason to clear fairways would be speed of play?

Chuck,

I figure this might be a good place for all pro players to get your opinions of holes 3 and 18 at the Nockamixion course in PA.

- Bushes next to baskets where there's no shot (not just a different type of putt) 10 feet away are not good. I fully support obstacles on and around greens as long as there's some sort of airway to the basket even if you have to stretch out wide left or right or go over the top.



I love Ball Golf analogies! Not. But I will anyway. :p

Tiger barely missed the green on the 650 yard 17th hole with his 2nd shot. He got totally unlucky and ended up against the FAR lip of the greenside bunker. He had no option to play anywhere toward the pin. That's the price he paid. :eek:

This happens A LOT. It's not bad. You don't ALWAYS get to have a shot at the basket -- even a funky shot. You shouldn't have thrown in the bush. :D

Whatever your answer is my response will be: You shouldn't have thrown in the bush. :D

Holes 3 & 18 at Nocka were unfinished and the designers themselves were disappointed that they couldn't take out trees that had been identified to come out to create appropriate routes. Now that holes 1-4 will be removed, it doesn't make much sense to talk about improvements to 3. On hole 18 plus several others, it remains to be seen whether the new Park Superintendent will allow them to remove trees and complete these holes so Nocka has the chance to reach its full potential.

So would it be appropriate to say that although Nocka was unfinished, the second half of both holes 3 and 18 were 'lame' correct?

BTW - I am not out to offend anyone related to the awesome PA Worlds - I just really hated the ending of both of those holes. For the record I went 3/4 on hole 3 and I went 5/4 on hole 18.

Whatever your answer is my response will be: You shouldn't have thrown in the bush.



I understand ball golf designers want to introduce strategically placed bricks on their greens so putts from some directions can't be made and no chipping allowed on greens. Tough luck if you get in the wrong position. They borrowed the idea from miniature golf and seeing bushes by baskets in disc golf.

Separate from any putting blockage issues, bushes this close with no shot is a bad idea because they will be trashed by rec players.

Since these are courses in my area I feel I need to respond. (Assuming that course P is Kimball Pines in Battle Creek and course M is Robert Morris in Comstock.

I feel that a lot of the crictism is opinion based and ignorance of some issues.


Only one of these two courses is in K-zoo. I hope course P is still in development, but it's probably not with cement tee pads already. It will likely get one of the lowest Design scores in the new PDGA Course Eval process. In all seriousness, it could be used as a lab to illustrate course design mistakes. Here are the ones I can remember:

- Several baskets too close to bushes
(opinion)

- Several blind baskets
(what is wrong with blind holes??)

- Walking back on the fairway just played to next tee
(I can think of a couple of short walks, but nothing that is more then 80 feet or worse then I've seen hundreds of times)

- Walking back to the tee on the next fairway and blindly emerging onto it from previous fairway.
(I assume this is referring to hole 7 and hole 8, where there is an alternate path to the next tee insted of wlking down the fairway)

- Several undefined fairways
- Several "ways" but not fairways
- Discs can't fly the way the intended route is defined
- Several way too tight "routes"
(All opinions about a new highly wooded course that still needs clearing done to it)

- Some pins too close to next tees and fairways too close to other fairways
(Hole 11 and 12 is the only case, where the pin is close to the next tee. I don't know where fairways are to close together??)

- Walking across another fairway from one pin to next tee
(From 5 basket to 6 tee, you missed the path)

- Safety issue with route over shelter
(The shelter near hole 13 is abandoned and not used. The park has talked about tearing it down.)

- Tee pads shouldn't have been poured until some of these issues could be dealt with.

Course M has these issues:
- Unnecessary number of blind holes (13 of 18)
(Again what is wrong with not seeing the basket from the tee??? Espicially when you can see what the basket is tucked behind.)

- Several improper hole lengths for intended player/route
(Most holes have 3 tees. The cement is on the long tees. Choose the hole length appropiate for your distance. This critism is silly.)

- Ill-defined alternate tees
(I do agree, they do need to be better marked)

- Pinball fairways on several holes on front nine
(4 Wooded holes, 1 that is long and narrow and 1 that is short with not much down the middle, but has an alternate flight path on the outside, the other 2 I don't understand the problem.)

- Park road behind blind approach on one hole
(On hole 11 the road is 100' past the basket.)

- A few baskets too close to bushes
(opinion)

- Walking back up the next fairway to tee
(where??)

- The park is nicely manicured and course is tolerable, but not when paying a park fee



I think you should contact a local player next time you evaluate a course in order to better understand the course and what is going on. Some of your issues are just and some are not. If you are evaluating a course for publication you should find out if what you think is a problem really is a problem or if it is going to be addressed. Maybe you can point out something that could be fixed that wasn't thought of.
I also think that it is obvious you are not too fond of wooded courses. A lot of people aren't.

Unfortunitly disc golf does not have a ton of money in it. I would love to do a lot more clearing at Kimball Pines and to have more/better signs at Robert Morris and Kimball. When courses are being built by volunteers and by jail crews for a parks department on a budget things don't get done ideally or completely and next tee signs, garbage cans, benches, and stuff like that get left out.

Course P is not Kimball Pines and not very near K-zoo. I would have loved to talk with locals involved with the courses. I figured these posts would flush them out. I don't wish to air the discussion online. I would prefer the issues be addressed as well as possible, recognizing that some cannot due to Park resistance. It's foolish for you to assume I don't like wooded courses for I have designed more than most, and players from that area have played some of them. If one or more Michigan designers would participate in the national design discussions via DGCD or other venues, they would realize these were valid criticisms and not just an opinion. T. Calhoun has talked about participating but he already does much for us to have much time for design. PM me to discuss further.

If you are planning on evaluating an area's courses, wouldn't it make sense to try and get ahold of the contact person for that course that is listed in the PDGA course directory or the tournament director of a local event? That would get you in contact with the locals involved with a course better then trying to flush them out with a post on the discussion board. If you don't wish to air issues online, then you shouldn't leave a post like the one you left. I would be interested in knowing what course "P" is. I also feel that if you are going to post about your course evaluations you should then mention the course, insted of letting people guess at them.

I was assuming that you were talking about Kimball Pines when I said that you don't like wooded courses, because a lot of the issues you had focused on was mainly with the course being to tight. I disagree with that about Kimball Pines. There is still work that needs to be done out there and it will get done in time (like what you said about Noca).

I beleave that most critism is opinion based. There are a lot of people that beleave that there shouldn't be anything within 10m of the basket, while others beleave that it adds to the challenge of the hole. I disagree with you about the bushes at Robert Morris. Is landing in a bush that is hard to putt from different from landing in water that is near the basket?? Valid critism or not, it is an opinion. Maybe even sharred by others that discuss things on the internet. I agree that you shouldn't throw your disc into the bush. I think that most experienced course designers know that when they do a course they will always hear what they should have done different. This is espicially the case on a course that is highly wooded. They will always hear that a certain tree should come out or something near a basket should be removed. There are a lot of people that don't like wooded courses (or a certain course) for these reasons.

Those were never intended to be formal or even informal evaluations. If I were doing them, it certainly wouldn't have been done online on this discussion board and it would been detailed hole-by-hole. There's now a formal process thru the new PDGA Course Evaluation system.

I was expressing my disappointment with the two Michigan courses I played because some were interested what I thought. I PM'd them with the course specifics if they asked. I wanted to mention specific design issues which are not emotional responses like "this course sucks" which is typical, but not constructive.

BTW, the walk from hole 16 to the tee for 17 is one of the examples where you blindly walk into the 17 fairway to walk back to the tee. Hole 15 is one of the holes where bushes are too close to the pin and the pine tree next to the basket on 16 is being stressed by shots at or around it.

There's absolutely no support for blind holes as preferred design and these holes will be scored lower by any sanctioned design evaluation. Acceptable ways to do them would be to have a reference element that's visible like a tree or bush that indicates where the shot needs to bend left or right. If it's a 2-shot hole, you don't need to see the pin as long as it's reasonably visible from the preferred landing area (like #10). Blind landings for drives on multishot holes are tolerable if there's lots of space to land without blind hazards. For example, hole 17 would be a much cooler design if reversed and a superior version of #11 without the road less than 60' below a blind pin. At least the pin on 11 has an extended flag for some visibility.

Formal evaluation or not, you brought up issues and was insulting about the courses you played. I understand that you were trying to be constructive in your critism and saying that you feel that bushes near baskets are an issue. On the same respect I disagree about the bushes. Because you get close to the basket doesn't mean that the obstacles should go away or not punish you for not landing in the intended area, even within 10m. Again my comparison to water near the basket remains. The bushes near 15 is what makes that hole different from thousands of other holes that are 300+ft, straight, and no other obstacles. The pine on 16 is stressed from the course, well so are thousands of other trees on our area courses near the basket or on the fairway (you would have loved Cold Brook for this reason). This will happen to trees on any well used course.

From 16 to 17 there are only scrub trees there and you can clearly see the tee area while walking there. The path also puts you between the short and long tee. I don't beleave this to be an issue.

Maybe blind holes are not preferred with a lot of people, but neither are highly wooded courses with most. I personally don't have an issue with blind holes. If I don't know where the basket is I will go look before I throw. I'm willing to do that to play a more interesting course that has challenges that others don't. Most of the holes at Robert Morris that are blind, do have some sort of reference that you can use from the tee. You complain that there are 13 blind holes. Most of these have a reference that can be used or are too long for most to be an issue on the drive. Blind holes are not a bad thing, just different from the norm. Now you have support for blind holes, me.

Even with all the problems that you have with Robert Morris, it is still a popular course and well liked by a lot of people. You can see this by other posts in this thread. Since you apparrently didn't like things it is going to get a bad evalution with the PDGA. That is unfortunate.

When I designed Cold Brook, many player's hated it and said it was the worse course they played. Yet, somehow Cold Brook became one on Michigan's most played courses and my league there has 140 members drawing about 100 each week. Is it bad because it bucked the trend at that time and was tight and through the woods?? How can it be a bad course when it is so popular??

Is it bad because it bucked the trend at that time and was tight and through the woods?? How can it be a bad course when it is so popular??




Popularity has little to do with course quality and sometimes it's due to limited alternatives. Rec players are way more accepting of poorly designed "lucky" holes from a skill standpoint. In fact many prefer them because it levels the field against more skillful players. It's been a running discussion in our design group, how to make holes fun but still well designed, recognizing that "fun" for Rec players many times is perceived as luck elements for those with skills. Some of the most fun courses for some people are private courses with bathtubs and tires for targets.

There are popular "lucky" holes/courses all over the country that perhaps shouldn't be used for PDGA play above the Rec level, and that's OK. Better to get people playing the sport and enjoying it. Championship courses aren't necessarily popular no matter how well designed, especially when rounds might take over 3 hours, you might lose discs in water and it takes real skills to play them. It's a balancing act to design for all player levels within a course if possible and within a community of courses. If it can be done with multiple tees on the same course, that's superb, but it's not always easy to pull off.