I have been thinking about this concept the past few days and throught I would throw it out for discussion.

Does anyone else feel, as I do, that fairway width should increase with fairway length? Playing a short, narrow hole in the 200-foot range seems reasonable, but when you increase the length of the hole to, for example, 350-400 feet, the fairway should be wider to accommodate the stronger throws that will go that far.

I agree that this is the case in a rigid par system. By that I mean players expecting par 3's for every hole.

I have no problem with a 500ft hole with 30ft wide fairways. But this is relative. Par would need to be at least 4 on a hole like this. Secondly, the fairway should have some changes in it, such as elevation, obstacles (such as boulders or a strategic tree blocking a bomb shot), or turns. Having a dead straight flat open tunnel for distances that far is ridiculous, it would be boring.

In addition, the long narrow fairways should have easily identified landing zones.

My favorite long holes start out really wide to give the player a big booming shot, but placement is key to set up the subsequential shots to properly advance up the fairway. Our long hole on my home course is 150ft wide and 400ft long to start. Then from 400-550ft it is only about 75ft wide with shule on the left and right and two large oaks on the right half of the fairway. The last 150ft narrows down to only 20ft wide with the basket tucked into a corner.

In all honesty as long as the fairway is defined and manageable, and par is adjusted appropriately then length and width can be semi independent of eachother. One test I have heard from a few well known course designers is that you should be able to drive a full sized truck though the fairway to give an idea of width. Obviously some terrain may not allow this but it gives the idea of how big gaps need to be. A full sized truck is only 7ft wide.

The truck analogy is a good one, but due to turns and elevation changes along the fairway, the practical width may be more narrow than the actual cleared width.

I don't see that this tenet should be any different for a Par 54 course than it would be for a Par 62 course.

I wasn't inferring that fairway widths should be different on different par courses, in relation to length.

All I was saying is that a narrow fairway guarded by woods, and +500ft long is not a par three. If you were to have a hole like this on a course, and then say par is 54, then you would have to have at least one par 2.

I agree about the practical/actual width statement. A 30ft wide fairway for 500ft is A LOT narrower then a 30ft wide fairway for 200ft.

I have played on a hole that was only 225ft long but the fairway was only 5ft wide. It was the most frustrating hole I have ever seen. The hole is either a 2 or a 4-5. I felt it was a poorly designed hole. 5ft wide fairways are way to narrow IMO.

This hole is generating a lot of discussion on another message board. It's hole#3 at FDR State Park, about one hour north of New York City. It's a classic gauntlet hole, and very typical of many disc golf holes in the New England/New York/Pennsylvania region.

The hole measures no longer than about 150 feet, and somewhere around 5-6 feet wide. A few golfers think that it's unfair, and that too much "luck" is involved. If you can throw a straight putter or mid-range, it's there for the deuce. It's also been aced. This is a hole that favors the soft touch thrower, and is there to punish the big arms with little control. Over the years I've often gained two strokes on this hole over guys who outdrive me by 100 feet on the open holes. Personally, I feel that people who don't like this hole either haven't seen many disc golf courses, especially those in New England where this type of hole is ubiquitous, or simply don't have any touch.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/lsteffen/2003fdrice/fdr3drivesteve.jpg

I see no problem with that hole except maybe its short length. That gap doesnt seem unfair(and I am from Texas). How far are those two trees in the middle form the basket?

The hole measures no longer than about 150 feet, and somewhere around 5-6 feet wide.



Wow, a 150ft long hole!

I have never played a hole so short. Most courses I play, the holes average just over 350ft. I think the shortest I have played is a hair over 200. It was tight, a sidearm hyzer with about a 6-7ft fairway.

It looks like hole you showed offered someone to get the up and down three if they hit an early tree and execute a successful upshot.

The 225ft hole I was speaking of is lined with pine trees that are 8ft apart on both sides of the 5ft wide fairway. On the other sides of the pine trees is undergrowth so thick you cannot do anything but pitch back out to the "fairway".

So it is either 2 or 4-5 like I had said.

Even though my power-distance game is better then my finesse-control I would play that 150ft hole over the 225ft anyday. I wish I had a picture, but it is in Mobile at Cottage Hill DGC. I forget what # it is, but the locals call it "The Virgin".

I'll go back to my guidelines on thirds. If MORE than 2/3 of the players at the skill level a hole was designed for are reaching it (land in putting circle) then maybe it's not tight (or challenging) enough. If fewer than half are reaching it, it's too tight. It makes no sense if less than half the field can't consistently execute a shot the designer has intended. Of course, that means less than half of lower skill players might not reach it, which would be expected.

So, ideally I'm suggesting that somewhere between 1/2 to 2/3 of players at the designed skill level should reach the pin. If the percentage is outside that, then either the length, width or angle should be adjusted for better fairness/challenge.

I can see two things potentially wrong with this hole. The gap being shot through is fine, but what happens if the shot were to miss to the right or left of the two trees that define the gap? That would be the luck part. There appears to be a luck channel just right of the right tree, and at least one luck channel to the left and through the middle of the left tree. If it is almost as easy to miss and get a putt as it is to nail the drive, that would be a lucky hole. On the other hand, if you miss the gap, and have almost no chance to get a putt, that would be a good hole. Also, is this an easy vertical?

I also think the 150' maybe a little short. Leave it 80'-100' past the 2 trees in the middle so shots that hit them are not looking at a long put, but an upshot, and bad shots to either side need a very good upshot to make a 3.

On the 30' wide 500' long hole, it's really 2 250' holes back to back, so the fairway is not too tight. I think it would still be fiar even if it choked down after 300' if a slightly wider landing area was created at 300' with a tighter 200' shot to the pin.

We are putting in a new course, with two extremely tough finishing holes. #18 is 500ft, downhill straight and the first 300ft is through 30ft wide fairways with privet on the sides.

#17 is a great hole.
First 275ft starts out 15ft wide, then opens up to 30ft wide landing zone with a large oak in the middle of the fairway, you must land left or right of the tree. Then the players are left with an downhill then back uphill lefty hyzer shot for 150ft, or a righty hyzer route for 150ft. Depending the the rock content of the green we might have to move the basket back about 75-100ft. If so, there would be another 20-30ft fairway where the two handed hyzer routes meet at the current green. With marking posts we have had our cities top pros and a few advanced players take a threes from the pro pad, but those were two excellent shots. So it will be a par 4. I will post a picture once we get it finished this month.

That hole (at FDR) doesn't give me too much grief for a red tee hole. But for any higher level tee (white, blue, gold), I would say it approaches being too tight. I feel that if you design a course as a red level course and then add longer tees to it, consideration should be given to revising fairway width, obstacles, or landing areas, as was mentioned above.

For the course I am currently working on, we designed it from the blue tees and then added white tees later.

When you added the white tees, did you use the same fairways, or come up with new lines for the whites ?

This is hole#6 at Barnet Park in Kinston, NC. The hole is 162 feet long, with a fairway that is no more than 36 inches wide. It is literally so narrow that two people could not walk abreast. Off the fairway is thick jail with hundreds of small trees - the only recourse is to throw laterally back to the fairway. What's even worse is that the hole bends to the right in the last 20% of the fairway, so you have to throw a slight anhyzer if you want to reach the pin. At least hole#3 at FDR is straight. It's difficult to see, but you can spot the elevated basket in the picture. There are two trees behind the teepad, and you can pinpoint the polehole if you look just to the left of the small tree on the left. The basket is almost lined up with the left edge of the teepad.

http://www.kinstondiscgolf.com/media/6.jpg

The whites were added to create a short version of the course as designed. I saw no need to create a course within a course for this project. If it was the only course in the area, then I would have been inclined to come up with slightly different fairways for the different tees. However, NN Park DGC is right down the street (13 miles) and provides that experience. For this course, I wanted to do something different, so the design is more from a ball-golf approach where the white tees provide for a shorter version of the blue course.

Good reasoned response. Just was checking to see if the idea had been thought about. Too many courses don't seem to have considered that option and have a few holes where a shorter version of the blues just doesn't have the same challenge from the whites (with the appropriate players throwing from each tee).

Exactly.

The course I was involved with in Charlottesville, VA was the first course in the area, so the short tee course is slightly different from the long tee course. However, we did the routing and hole design based on the long tees. That method seems to work well for us because it avoids the potential for encroachment and hole conflict problems encountered when expanding a short course.

Either philosophy for setting shorter tees is fine (in line with longs versus different angles). The most important thing is to make sure the shorter tee positions are actually "designed" for an intended player skill level (white, red) versus just being marked as an afterthought as sometimes happens.

In a pay-for-play facility like Highbridge, I believe you're looking for variety to keep player interest by providing options. So, my bias there was looking for more differences than similarities between long and short tees. However, cost/environmental issues come into play on wooded holes. So, it's more likely the shorter tee will be on the same route as that from the long tee.

There are some holes where the technical challenge of a shot from the long tee is so high that placing the short tee on the same line would be inappropriate for the lower skill level. In that case, I'm usually placing the tee on a shallower angle of attack.

Does anyone else feel, as I do, that fairway width should increase with fairway length? Playing a short, narrow hole in the 200-foot range seems reasonable, but when you increase the length of the hole to, for example, 350-400 feet, the fairway should be wider to accommodate the stronger throws that will go that far.


On some holes you may want to reward the big-arm that can throw a drive that carries 350+ ft. straight by widening the fairway to accomodate end of flight fade.

On others, notably par 4's and 5's, you may want to narrow the fairway at certain points to force the player to strategize on the tee shot. For instance, on a 700 ft. par 4 the fairway may be moderately-wide at 300 ft., giving the conservative player a strong chance at hitting the fairway, but leaving a 400 ft. second shot. At 340 the fairway could narrow, and narrow further at 400 ft. i.e. The longer you drive the greater the odds that the fairway is missed and a clean shot to the basket is lost.

This example can also be applied to doglegs. I think it's great to see more and more multi-shot dogleg holes appearing in disc golf. I do think, however, that many are of the variety of throw to a defined landing area to have a look down a shute for the 2nd shot. I'd like to see a bit more "gray" areas with these shots that utilize a sweeping dogleg. A short, relatively safe drive could set up a 380 ft. S curve for a second shot, a moderately-agressive drive could leave a 340 ft. hyzer shot, and an agressive drive could leave a 290 ft. straight shot.

. . . and to carrying water hazards. Way too many disc golf holes use water as a make-or-die hazard that throws directly across the water. Utilizing shots that go diagonally over water tempt players to see how much they want to bite off. A good example of this type of tee shot is from the Iowa worlds finals. (don't remember the hole#)

I like to force players to think on the teebox about how agressively they should play and gamble accordingly. Players that just pick their favorite gap and blast away should be punished by finding the spots where you never want to be.

We are putting in a new course, with two extremely tough finishing holes. ...



Where is that new course? Is it in B'ham? That would be sweet to get another course in Birmingham!

Hole #6, aka "The Skinny," is the narrowest fairway I've designed. The shape is in juxtaposition to the proceeding hole which is the longest and broadest wooded hole on the Kinston Course.

The strategy for #6 is to play for a 30-40 foot putt. The hole becomes much more difficult if you play for tap in. It also helps righties to have a sidearm which naturally fades right at the end.

The trees immediately behind and adjacent to the tee play an important role. They stiffen the challenge for the vertical shot. I would have removed more trees in the fairway if #6 had been much longer or if any of the trees had created a luck gap. I believe a uniform four foot wide corridor is far superior to an opening twice as big that is bisected by a lone tree. Over time, we may to widen and lengthen this hole if luck gaps emerge. Fortunately, there is room to do this.

I do not think I would create a hole any narrower than "The Skinny," but given the right set of trees and course sequence psychology, I would not hesitate to use this type of hole again.

Take care,
Harold

TThe Skinny is a great golf hole, and a perfect example of length to fairway width. Also The Kinson front 9 is one of the toughest in golf....from the longs.

The strategy for #6 is to play for a 30-40 foot putt. The hole becomes much more difficult if you play for tap in.


Love to see these "sucker" pin locations. I'd suggest incorporating this into Chuck's design by 1/3's concept and say that on any particular course layout at least 1/3 of the holes should have pins where the "A" shot doesn't get you within the 10 meter circle.

I also like the idea of following up the most wide open hole with the tightest.

The Bear course being developed at Highbridge will have a hole with a tight straight ahead corridor to the pin maybe 220' and an alternate anhyzer fairway that's much wider but the arc of the shot will put you 30-50 feet to the left of or past the pin. So, you get the deuce if you can actually execute straight ahead or get the "easy" 3 to the left with a chance to make a deuce putt from slightly beyond 10m.

Sounds like a great concept!

When you say "easy" 3 does that mean that bogey's a realistic possibility?

The hole is totally wooded so "easy" is relative. That route will just be a wider corridor. If you don't execute the easy 3 route, you'll lose distance (or worse) hitting a tree along the edge. Likewise, saving a three going up the middle may be a challenge if you mack a tree along the way. I think the scoring spread will be solid with maybe 25% each 4s & 2s and 50% 3s.

I think the distribution will shift based on a learning curve as players learn to play it. I think several Winthrop holes may have had a distribution change over the years as players got smarter about some of them.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/lsteffen/2003fdrice/fdr3drivesteve.jpg



<font color="red"> FOOT FAULT!!!! </font>

:eek:

Seriously...

I see no problem with this hole since it is ONLY 150'.
Heck thats a "Jump Putt" for alot of people. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If it were 400' then it could be deemed "unfair", but then again its always the same for EVERYONE, so thats fair as well.
:)

Harold, thanks for weighing in with your design philosophy on this hole. As you indicated, there is a nice juxtaposition of hole length of #6 and the hole that precedes it. I like that!

The one and only time I played this hole 3 1/2 years ago, I threw three putter shots of about 50 feet each and was happy to escape with a bogey. While the rest of the course is a masterpiece, I still think that it is just too narrow - nobody can throw this fairway consistently while many, many people can consistently throw the fairway of hole#3 at FDR, which is pictured. There is a very clear and very big difference.

We are putting in a new course, with two extremely tough finishing holes. ...



Where is that new course? Is it in B'ham? That would be sweet to get another course in Birmingham!



It is in a suburb of Birmingham, Trussville. Located on the east side of Birmingham off I-59. It is about 15-20 minutes away from George Ward. Birmingham will finally be able to host a good A-Tier with George Ward and Civitan. The Trussville course is a lot less forgiving then George Ward. 4 holes are through very very tight woods and brush.

How about this one?

This hole is sharply downhill and less than 250 feet long; therefore its effective length is probably less than 200 feet long.

http://www.marshallstreetdiscgolf.com/wallpaper/ms_spring3_800.jpg

This is a classic New England disc golf hole and an excellent test of accuracy. People that would call this hole unfair or all luck just don't get it.

How wide is that tunnel?

If throws from at least 1/2 to 2/3 of players of the skill level the hole is designed for don't make it at least about 40 feet from the basket before possibly hitting a tree, then it's too tight. The trick is figuring out what that means in terms of proper width. Nothing like testing to confirm it.

Testing is a good way to find that out, for sure. Another way would be for the designer to look down the fairway and if he/she says "that's too tight" , then it's too tight. Sometimes testing is the best way, but don't discount your instincts.

I think that it most cases, if the course designers thought it was too tight, they wouldn't have designed it that way.

In my experience, usually what happens is that the course designers think it's okay. The local recreational players think it's okay. The local pros think it's okay. But then Joe Touring Pro comes in from Michigan, Texas, or other places where maybe he isn't used to tight fairways. And then instead of throwing softly to play it safe and reduce wild deflections off trees, he goes for the ace and guns it, and ends up deflecting badly laterally into the woods and maybe takes a bogey. Then he whines loudly and complains that the hole is too tight, unfair, and based on luck.

I hear you Jeff. We have had that complaint here in Virginia from touring pros who sometimes find the wooded holes a bit tight. The thing to remember is that "too tight" for Designer A is likely to be different than "too tight" for Designer B. But I think at some point, there is going to be an instance where a hole is just simply too tight to be considered a fair hole by the majority of players and designers as well. The question is, where is that point? Not an easy question to answer.

See my earlier post. If 1/2 the players of the skill level the hole was designed for can't get to the intended landing area on average, it's not design, it's just luck. That's worst case. I doubt you could find a ball golf par 3 that half the players couldn't land on the green on average when playing the tee for their skill level. I'm not saying at least 50% need to be parking the hole on average, but just getting down the fairway in the vicinity of the green.

This is a misapplication of "effective length." The disc still needs to fly straight for the full 250 feet. If anything, the downhill makes this hole more challenging as it relates to fairway width, not less.

Take care,
Harold

And in fact, when we estimate scoring averages for a design, we use actual length on downhill reachable holes because the disc still flies as far as on level ground. On uphill holes, we do use adjusted length. This process matches actual scoring results so it's not just a theory.

Think about the big downhill holes that are 425 feet but have an effective length of maybe 290. Players don't end up as close to this hole on average as they do on a level 290 ft hole.

Think about the big downhill holes that are 425 feet but have an effective length of maybe 290. Players don't end up as close to this hole on average as they do on a level 290 ft hole.



Is that a function of fairway width to length ratio, or something else? My guess is that the proportions you observe are based more on lack of familiarity of throwing downhill. Afterall, it is no fun practice since you have to run up and down and get all pooped out. With practice, I'll bet most people could get pretty close results on a 290' flat hole and 290 effective foot downhill hole. It is all about knowing what disc to throw how hard and at what release angle.

The problem is the day you practice the big downhill, the wind is one way. Then, it's different when you play it in competition. For most, it's easier to adjust on the fly for the flat 290 for different wind.

This is a misapplication of "effective length." The disc still needs to fly straight for the full 250 feet. If anything, the downhill makes this hole more challenging as it relates to fairway width, not less.

Take care,
Harold



Huh? Where is there a "misapplication?" From the PDGA Course Design Guidelines: (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf) (which Harold Duvall and Chuck Kennedy probably generated)


The Effective Length is a hole’s measured length (by laser, tape, foot, GPS or wheel) plus or minus the elevation adjustment. The elevation adjustment is calculated by taking the vertical elevation change, multiplying it by 3, then adding it to the hole’s measured length for upslopes and subtract it for downslopes to calculate a hole’s effective length.



Therefore, a hole that is ~250 feet long with a ~16 foot elevation drop will have an effective length of ~200 feet.

The effective length estimates how much energy would be required to throw the shot and what divisions that length might be suitable for. If a hole is longer than a certain amount, it might not be suitable for a skill level. But the actual length on downhill throws seems to be a better predictor of how accurate those throws might be on average than the effective length.

Accuracy decreases as the power behind the throw increases. Accordingly, a 200-foot wooded hole can have a more narrow fairway than a 425-foot wooded hole. I think this will be borne out by Chuck's test.

Does anyone else feel, as I do, that fairway width should increase with fairway length? Playing a short, narrow hole in the 200-foot range seems reasonable, but when you increase the length of the hole to, for example, 350-400 feet, the fairway should be wider to accommodate the stronger throws that will go that far.



I totally agree with this. It's most applicable with holes that have more than average (factor 5) foliage (foliage factor 6-9.) It even seems concievable to me that this could be quantified and broken down by foliage factor. The foliage factors are:
5 - Average
6 - Woodsy
7 - Corridor
8 - Tighter
9 - Pinball

The denser the foliage the more accuracy that you need, so you should be allowed more width to compensate. Nockamixon does a great job of having wide fairways on long wooded holes. I think that the longer a hole is the wider it should be.

Kinston hole 6 (discussed above) is a great example. Personally, I still have mixed feelings about it, but it can be said to work because of the novelty factor, and it is a change of pace. Since it has a fairway, even though it's only 3 ft. wide, I'd call it foliage factor 8. You can only get away with such a narrow fairway on a hole that is that short. If the hole was 300 ft. long it would be too frustrating to dink putters all down the fairway. Another NC course, Farm Life in Williamston, is filled with narrow fairways. At the beginning it's a challenge and fun, but by the end of the course you get so tired of dinking shots down fairways that are too narrow. I call this "novelty fatigue" and it takes away the fun.

Hornet's Nest hole 14 in Charlotte is another hole to consider. Here's a description, "14. 239' - NARROW. NARROW. NARROW. This straight but narrow fairway falls gradually about two-thirds of it's length where it rises to the basket. The pinch point about half-way down the fairway is about 7 ft. wide." It works because it's a change of pace; it's a novelty on that course. But I wouldn't want to have more than one on a course. Notice that it's only 239 ft. If it was 400 ft. it would be ridiculous.

Harold places a high value on holes being fun and fair. I think that to be fun and fair the higher the foliage factor the shorter the fairway should be. This also goes along with the longer the hole the wider the fairway should be. There's a definite correlation between width-length-and enjoyment. Good designers seem to have already put length restrictions on holes that have dense foliage and very narrow fairways.

Accuracy decreases as the power behind the throw increases. Accordingly, a 200-foot wooded hole can have a more narrow fairway than a 425-foot wooded hole. I think this will be borne out by Chuck's test.



Once again, I agree. To put it the other way around, as accuracy needs increase the power decreases. I think it's OK to have a narrow fairway on a wooded hole, but they should also be shorter. In addition, the thicker the foliage off the fairway the more accuracy you need to avoid penalties. As the foliage factor increases you can make holes equal by increasing the width or decreasing the length.

For discussion lets say that 1000 rated Gold players throw an average distance of 380 ft. on holes with average foliage (factor 5). I think it's conceivable to come up with rough guidelines for how distance decreases as foliage increases (thus accuracy needs increase). This is totally off the top of my head not from any empirical testing but it might look something like this:

Factor 5 - 380 ft.
Factor 6 - 360 ft.
Factor 7 - 340 ft.
Factor 8 - 320 ft.
Factor 9 - 300 ft.

There's also the interplay of fairway width, which includes how many pinch points there are. The narrower the fairway the greater the accuracy needed and the less power and the less length.

Width - Length - Foliage (includes OB trouble) all interplay.

Here's (http://www.leftcoastdiscgolf.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=42&page=view&catid=474&key=2&hit=1) a tight fairway with an alternate anny route. The straight ahead shot gives you a chance at 2, the anny is a 3 (or long putt 2). Of course there is a big cliff on the left side so the anny isn't free of risk :eek:

These holes were designed by people who sell golf discs.

Boink! "Would you like sour cream with your taco?"

These holes were designed by people who sell golf discs.

Boink! "Would you like sour cream with your taco?"



Ever heard of Champion plastic?

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/705/705_image_01.jpg

You said taco (http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/display_sound.php?ep_number=705&ep_name=Fat%20Butt%20and%20Pancake%20Head&snd=http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/sounds/705/RUNFORTHEBORDERSONG.wav&snd_name=Baby%20lets%20make%20a%20run%20for%20the% 20border,%20I've%20got%20a%20hunger%20only%20tacos %20can%20stop.)

I think that it most cases, if the course designers thought it was too tight, they wouldn't have designed it that way.

In my experience, usually what happens is that the course designers think it's okay. The local recreational players think it's okay. The local pros think it's okay. But then Joe Touring Pro comes in from Michigan, Texas, or other places where maybe he isn't used to tight fairways. And then instead of throwing softly to play it safe and reduce wild deflections off trees, he goes for the ace and guns it, and ends up deflecting badly laterally into the woods and maybe takes a bogey. Then he whines loudly and complains that the hole is too tight, unfair, and based on luck.



True - players need to stop whining about the fact that you weren't good enough to make the perfect throw. It comes along only so often, and is based on your particular skillset. Rather than complaining about the poor design, step up and rip the perfect drive. If you don't, chalk one up for the discin gods because they beat you on that hole.

Maybe the reason that we have so many discussions about wooded tunnel holes and narrow fairways is because of the intangibles. We all love the challenge. We love "trying" to flick a disc 400' through a 6' wide corridor. It excites us, and the exhiliration of making that perfect toss is unmeasurable. 2/3 of a group are not meant to make it 2/3 down the fairway on every hole. Some holes should present an enormous amount of challenge. If everyone in the group gets a 5 or 6, it's a fantastic hole because it has the same amount of difficulty for everyone. For those that step up and rip the perfect disc, they should be rewarded with a 2. Gaining 3-4 strokes as a result of the "Perfect Throw" is something more courses should have. Isn't that how it should be? Isn't that a fair reward for a Perfect Throw?

I love the challenge. More often than not I do not beat the challenge, but I LOVE IT!

2/3 of a group are not meant to make it 2/3 down the fairway on every hole.



Sorry but that's the essence of DESIGN (minimum 2/3 and 1/2). Less than that and all you have is random tees and pins.

Studies by recreation professors have shown that recreational players are known to prefer luck versus skill elements in several sports because it levels the playing field against more skillful players. It's also more fun. I'm all for having fun factors in design as much as possible because you want your courses to be popular and successful. But never confuse fun with necessarily being good from a design or competition standpoint. Hopefully, you can get both in the design but it can't always be done. However, lucky aspects can be minimized but never eliminated with good design.

Studies by recreation professors have shown that recreational players are known to prefer luck versus skill elements in several sports because it levels the playing field against more skillful players.



i.e. the popularity of the windmill and clown's mouth minature golf courses vs. the old "putt-putt" courses that the pros played on tv.

so do we sell out the integrity of the game to appeal to these folks to grow our base or create gaps of the appropriate width?

i'd be very interested to see some data on the distribution of angle of deviation from the target line for different sample pools. we could use this info to estimate, for instance, what range of distances from a given gap would be appropriate for each level of player to achieve 2/3 of that pool making it through the gap.

By design, good design I may add, there are very few of these 'ridiculously difficult' holes out there on courses. The ratio of what we have shown on these couple threads versus the total number of holes of disc golf is probably less than 1%. THAT'S GREAT! Players need something like that to keep it real. And it doesn't take away from the integrity of the game to play something like that once in a while.

In no way are these holes to be labeled as "random tees and pins"! They are established for a purpose - to be difficult. There is a breaking point where a hole borders on ridiculous, but I don't think any of the ones pictured are even close to that. Each one even provides an opportunity for an ace with a great throw (not even a 'perfect' throw), and leaves room for some slop to the left or right in various cases. That is the farthest thing from random tees and pins. A tough recovery from a shanked drive is indeed something you should be punished for. If you shank a drive, you need a miraculous recovery for a 3 - that's the point, otherwise there is no penalty.

Think of it this way - CAN a disc fly completely straight for 300 feet? Yes! This is entirely possible with a huge number of discs and by a huge number of players. So a 300' hole that is 5' wide is not unachievable. Having trees on the sides just plays the psychological card. Those up for the challenge will nail it, those that aren't will hit the trees and then blam it on the trees.

How about this - post what you beleive is a ridiculous hole and see if others agree or disagree. (I have yet to see a ridiculous hole, but to me there is always that 1 in a million chance for the absolutely perfect throw, and that's all I need to make me get out there are try for it)

We all have preferences - me for tightly wooded holes, Chuck for balancing the numbers and applying statistics, and others for long open holes. That's never going to change.

(I have yet to see a ridiculous hole, but to me there is always that 1 in a million chance for the absolutely perfect throw, and that's all I need to make me get out there are try for it)



If a course has too many holes like that it should be called what it is - a lottery.

No courses have too many holes like this - that's my point. Courses are designed well in general because it is very rare to see one of these holes. Which also makes it more exciting to be able to throw one. Out of 87 courses that I've played, I'd say 10 holes were super tight with 5' wide tunnel fairways (distance ranged from 110' to 320'). So, 10 out of over 1550 holes got close to ridiculous - 0.6%!!!!! only one half of a percent. That's why I say the only people that whine are the ones that are punished - which is exactly what the hole was designed to do, punish the unsuccessful.

I haven't heard anyone whine on these threads, more or less just discussing how fair they are for a given skill level. I think lots of players do like these holes. If the scoring average on a hole like this is a 4.8 - then it's a true par 5 and is completely fair. Par is relative, and the best come in under par.

If the scoring average on a hole like this is a 4.8 - then it's a true par 5 and is completely fair.



Not necessarily true. For a super-ridiculous example:
take a 200 ft. hole with a 3 foot wide fairway, lined by OB ditches on both sides. Assume that hole averaged 4.8 for a sample group. Does that make the hole a par 5? No - it's super-ridiculous par 3 and should only exist for bachelor's parties and the like.

The word "fair" is used quite a bit in reference to holes with many different interpretations. I look at the word as in regards to how much luck influences the score distributions on a hole. The game of disc golf involves luck, there's no getting around that fact. I actually enjoy courses that include one or two holes where the luck factor is significantly higher than the norm. (the just plain ridiculous holes) I think it's a test of one's composure to see if that one unlucky break impacts the rest of the round or if it's possible to accept the unfortunate and move on.

(This thread makes me think of Cass Benton - "The course where score doesn't matter")

Back to "fair": look at any hole and examine where the variation in scores comes from. Take a hole with almost no luck factor, i.e. the 350 ft. wide-open shot. On this hole a gold pool of players would put 10% within 10 ft. for "gimmees" and maybe 5% outside of putting "range". 15% of the scores would, therefore, be determined purely by driving and 85% by a combination of driving and putting. We'll assume no spit-outs and as a result 0% determined by "luck". The spread of scores on that hole wouldn't be very interesting with probably 60% getting 2's, 40% getting 3's, and no bogeys, but it would be 100% "fair".

Any course with 0% luck factor would inherently be totally boring. All hazards and obstacles introduce luck into the equation. The difference between two shots that are thrown 400 ft. and are within inches of each other on opposite sides of an OB line approximates zero. They are equally bad shots, but one gets punished and one doesn't.

As more hazards are introduced and fairways are narrowed, then the % of score variance due to luck increases. At some point the luck factor becomes too prominent. There is definitely room for designer and player opinions on when this point is reached, but I think everyone would agree that a 300 ft. hole through a forest of trees all 2-3 ft. apart and no "fairway" would definitely fall under the category of "unfair" and even worse than that boring wide-open hole.

Personally, I favor holes that are fairly tight and agree with the previous post that I've seen few that fall into the WTF category.

thats a pretty good explanation. you can extend it to design par 4s and 5s. basically you figure out the percentage of the level you are designing for will hit the available landing zone given the available routes. if it is 75%, and the pin is another 75% shot to within the circle, then 3/4 x 3/4, or 56% of the field will 3.

if you can tighten up the sweet spot of the zone and the approach shot to where they are executed 60% of the time, then the probability of a 3 on the hole drops to 36%... depending on how easy recovery from trouble is, it just might be a tough par 4.

i would make one change to your analysis and use within 120 ft. instead of within the 10 meter circle.

if we think of a 10 meter putt as being equivalent to a five footer in ball golf and then watch a golf tournament on tv to see that it really takes an exceptional shot hit by a tested touring professional playing for big money to get that close. we've got way too many holes where a so-so advanced player can throw a decent shot and end up within the 10 meter circle almost every time.

If the scoring average on a hole like this is a 4.8 - then it's a true par 5 and is completely fair.



Nonsense. If the scores range from 2 to 8 on a pinball "random luck" hole and the average is 5, it might be a really stupid hole. A fair par 5 hole allows good players to get 5, bad players to get 6 or 7, and pros to get 4, and the extremely rare 3, THAT is a par 5 hole. If everybody gets random scores from 2 to 8 that average out to 5, regardless of their skill level, and based on pinball and luck, it's really idiotic and should be avoided. If you want luck, play roulette.

i was using the circle as a 100% hit by a pro. i understand the 120 idea, i like it a lot. lets say a player is at 120... designing that last 120 can make it an easy or difficult 2. are we saying the same thing?

Nonsense. If the scores range from 2 to 8 on a pinball "random luck" hole and the average is 5, it might be a really stupid hole. A fair par 5 hole allows good players to get 5, bad players to get 6 or 7, and pros to get 4, and the extremely rare 3, THAT is a par 5 hole. If everybody gets random scores from 2 to 8 that average out to 5, regardless of their skill level, and based on pinball and luck, it's really idiotic and should be avoided. If you want luck, play roulette.



2 and 8 define a average of 5. Those two numvers indivdually mean nothing in terms of a range of scores. It is different than an enire event being played on a course, where 90 players play two rounds and the range of scores varies from 2 as the low and 8 as the high, with an average of 180 scores on that hole being a 5. An average of a bunch of scores gives true and honest "par". If you've had 180 players on that hole, and the average is still 5 with a few 2s and a few 8s it's still a "fair" par 5 no matter how you want to tr yand interpret it. The exact same concept applies for a 1400ft par 5, it is what it is, the average score for players on that 1400ft hole is 5, that's what it takes to hole out - adding tight fairways, obstacles, OB, or trees is not any different. The 10% of players that can drive 500' will excel on the 1400' hole, just the same as the 10% of players that can ridle a bullet through a 300' narrow opening and not let the trees psyche them out will excel on that hole. I'll tell you right now that I'd probably take a 6 or 7 on that par 5 1400' hole, but in no way does it make it unfair.

What should really be examined is the standard deviation in addition to the average. One standard deviation from the average, means 70% of all scores contribute to the average with 30% being outliers. Two standard deviations mean that 95% of the scores define the average. To me, having 70% of the scores define an average is completely fair because statisticallt 15% are higher and 15% are lower. Having 15% of your field throw well on the hole and 15% throw horrible is still pretty "fair", although maybe not ideal.

I totally concede that "fair" is relative. But still push that none of these holes are anywhere near ridiculous in the least. Truly ridiculous would indeed be random tees and pins, but I contend that no holes are ever designed this way, so it's a mute point. Any hole that provides a path that a disc can actually follow (i.e. S pattern, straight, left, or right - but NO double S patterns) is reachable and achievable. But, it may turn out that the average scores show that it is so difficult that the "par" is 5 or 6.

No way. This is fairyland thinking. At last weekend's Target Championships (ball golf), they were commenting on how the trees had grown up since the design and several probably needed to be removed to re-establish fair fairways. Of course, as disc golfers looking at them, we'd say no problem.

The point is that all of ball golf fairways CAN be executed by players of the designed skill level on most of their tee shots. All that going too far narrowing fairways with trees does in DG is to reduce the number of shots that make it down the fairway to increase scoring spread, not due to skill but due to the "natural" statistical accuracy for that level of player.

The Blue skill level is fixed. Individual players can learn to throw more accurately, but the skill level of the Blue player group is fixed by definition. If a fairway only allows 1 in 10 blue level shots to reach the basket, it's too tight. No amount of jawing about how everyone plays the same hole and there are only a low percentage of these holes in the country changes the fact that it is not a good design. Perhaps there's a reason there aren't a lot of those holes because good designers know when they're too tight for a player level.

"Everybody plays the same hole." That's my favorite lame excuse for dumb design. You can say that about any hole no matter how dumb.

but NO double S patterns


Why not? If a disc golf hole is a par 4 or 5, then there are a lot of hole shapes that can be sweet.


If a fairway only allows 1 in 10 blue level shots to reach the basket, it's too tight.


Are you implying that the basket should be able to be parked on every hole, or that a player throwing a good shot should be able to have an unobstructed putt from inside, say 70 ft?

Players of the intended design level should be able to get at least 2/3 of the way more than 1/2 the time on every par 3 hole or to the intended landing area on higher par levels. No par 4 or higher should be due just to pinball averaging or OB penalties where it's not a hole that requires a skillful second shot from a designed landing area.

Perhaps there's a reason there aren't a lot of those holes because good designers know when they're too tight for a player level.



True. Guys, don't forget here that I love to try and play these types of holes. It doesn't necessarily mean that I would design one, in an effort to be fair to most. Winter Park has one that is about 225' long and 10-12' wide through some pines. That's about as far as I'll push it because I know there are a large number of people who dislike that type of hole. I also put it in because it's not typical in a majority of WI courses, so it's unique. I still think it's fair if I could make a good through, regardless of how unlikely it is, I'm up for the challenge.

One thing though -
Stop making comaprisons to ball golf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are not ball golf, and should not redefine our standards as a subset of theirs. We are DISC GOLF. We define our own rules and standards of play based on our unique and very different game (for experienced players disc golf is indeed VERY unique compared to ball golf). I think this is one of the lamest comparisons we have consciously decided to make as an organization, and we continue to push. It's sad that every disc golf article starts out with 4 paragraphs of background comparing it to ball golf - we need to start moving on and stepping into a uniquely defined image for our sport, not only as a type of inferior comaprison. We'll never more out of the shadow if we only define ourselves as a weird third cousin of ball golf. It's an easy comparison for a newbie, but it takes all the uniqueness and character out of our game. If you want to keep up the comaprisons to ball golf - the 1400' par 5 in disc golf is totally ridiculous. You wouldn't see any 1400 yard golf hole!

If you want to keep up the comaprisons to ball golf - the 1400' par 5 in disc golf is totally ridiculous. You wouldn't see any 1400 yard golf hole!




Sorry but the 1325' par 6 is already in the ground at Highbridge and yes there are 50 or so par 6 ball golf holes in the world and the USGA actually has guidelines for them so it's not a freak (holes over 700 yards for men).

The comparisons to ball golf are relevant because good design principles are similar even if what a good hole design looks like in each sport might be quite different. Designing fair fairways relevant to the capabilities of players in the sport is the same in both. Using statistical results to aid in design are relevant in both. We both use par even though the process of getting there is somewhat different in each.

If you want to keep up the comaprisons to ball golf - the 1400' par 5 in disc golf is totally ridiculous. You wouldn't see any 1400 yard golf hole!




Sorry but the 1325' par 6 is already in the ground at Highbridge and yes there are 50 or so par 6 ball golf holes in the world and the USGA actually has guidelines for them so it's not a freak (holes over 700 yards for men).




You might want to explain that the 1325' par 6 at Highbridge has an elevation drop of over 100' (correct?) and plays a lot shorter than 1325'.

I've got it estimated from topos as a 60-65 ft drop which knocks off close to 200 feet in effective length. On the other hand, I'm only admitting to 1325 feet and it's somewhat longer...

That's interesting, I never knew there were par 6 golf holes. The 1325 PAR 6 disc golf hole is more "fair" because it's a 6. But again, it's only relative, everyone throws the same course so having a very long hole is not out of context.

So, there are 50 par 6 holes in the WORLD of ball golf? I'd say that is right along the same lines as less than 1% of all disc holes that could possibly be considered as bordering on ridiculous. Honestly, good design or not, they were actually designed - random tees and pins DO NOT EXIST in the sport. And just having one of these holes does not justify concluding that the person is a poor designer. It's only one of many.

Designing ball golf fairways is based on a totally different flight pattern and characteristics than a disc. I think from a promotional standpoint we just need to step up and be confident and proud about disc golf - no need to compare it to a similar (but vastly different) sport called ball golf.

Again, how tight is fair ?

10' - 15' wide for anything under 300', as long as it is in a line that is playable, is not too narrow. The holes I have a problem with are holes that do not have a "line" to follow.

They are wide enough at any single point, but the lines don't connect into something that can be thrown down. Then it becomes a matter of luck. You attempt to throw down the same general path every time, but you have to just barely miss this tree to the right, the tree 90' later just to the left, then between the two trees 30' later, and hyzer just in front of the one 20' further down and you will be parked.

Other than that, you will kick off something and be deep in the shule. Walking down the fairway, it never really gets tight, just the line to the basket is never clear.

Again, how tight is fair ?

10' - 15' wide for anything under 300', as long as it is in a line that is playable, is not too narrow. The holes I have a problem with are holes that do not have a "line" to follow.

They are wide enough at any single point, but the lines don't connect into something that can be thrown down. Then it becomes a matter of luck. You attempt to throw down the same general path every time, but you have to just barely miss this tree to the right, the tree 90' later just to the left, then between the two trees 30' later, and hyzer just in front of the one 20' further down and you will be parked.

Other than that, you will kick off something and be deep in the shule. Walking down the fairway, it never really gets tight, just the line to the basket is never clear.



I'm still not convinced that #16 at Z-Boaz meets this description.

I asked Dave of Gateway if his monster course in the Ozarks has any par 6 holes, and he looked at me like it was a strange question.

Just for that I'm thinking of putting a par 6 hole at my course, I already have 2 par 5's.

Maybe not.

Here's the forecast for Gold level scoring on the par 6 based on Mid-Nats Blue level players who averaged 6.24 on the hole.

4 - 12%
5 - 32%
6 - 37%
7+ - 19%
for a 5.64 average. I think the 12% 4s is a high forecast. I suspect less than 1 in 20 will get 4s.

I'm not sure there's a technical reason for par 6s from the standpoint of adding something unique to BG or DG. You can justify that par 3s, 4s and 5s each add another shot to the mix of shots that need to be learned. All have a shot to the green. Par 4s have the drive from a fixed tee to a landing area with the need to set up the approach. The par 5 adds a usually full power shot from a landing area to another landing area. The par 6 more or less just adds a second full power shot from landing area to landing area. But we had the length to do it and it made sense for marketing a multi-course location to have something unique like the longest permanent hole.

This is hole#6 at Barnet Park in Kinston, NC. The hole is 162 feet long, with a fairway that is no more than 36 inches wide. It is literally so narrow that two people could not walk abreast. Off the fairway is thick jail with hundreds of small trees - the only recourse is to throw laterally back to the fairway. What's even worse is that the hole bends to the right in the last 20% of the fairway, so you have to throw a slight anhyzer if you want to reach the pin. At least hole#3 at FDR is straight. It's difficult to see, but you can spot the elevated basket in the picture. There are two trees behind the teepad, and you can pinpoint the polehole if you look just to the left of the small tree on the left. The basket is almost lined up with the left edge of the teepad.

http://www.kinstondiscgolf.com/media/6.jpg

This is a great golf hole. pefect length for the tightness.

I still think that it is just too narrow - nobody can throw this fairway consistently while many

I deuce this hole 80% of the time

Schwebby at age 4:




http://www.etherbinge.com/schweb.jpg

Good times, where did you get my picture.

where is your mullett?

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/ChrisDeitzelHole15IUPCollegeLodgeIn.jpg
Chris Deitzel on hole 15 at the IUP College Lodge, Indiana, PA (273 feet)

Another view of IUP hole 15 is at Disc Golf Course Review (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/gallery.php?id=123&amp;mode=gal#) .

Another view of IUP hole 15 is at Disc Golf Course Review (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/gallery.php?id=123&amp;mode=gal#).



Thanks, Lowe. You can see the polehole in that one.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/123/186992cc.jpg

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/ChrisDeitzelHole15IUPCollegeLodgeIn.jpg
Chris Deitzel on hole 15 at the IUP College Lodge, Indiana, PA (273 feet)



I assume that is presented as a disagreement :D

I still think that it is just too narrow - nobody can throw this fairway consistently while many

I deuce this hole 80% of the time



yeah you throw a flippy dog toy eagle sidearm thumber hard as crap- a shot that just about only one person the word can do and the perfect shot for the hole. I just can't see how a hole with the perfect shot is something that maybe 10 - 20 people in the world at best can throw is a good hole.

I'm sorry, this hole sucks.

And I deuce it quite a bit backhanded, that is, when I remember to bring my dog toy putter to the course.

I'm sorry, this hole sucks.



Thank you Robert! "Suck" is a hard quality to disguise.

Don't confuse lack of skill with a hole that sucks.

If the skill required is above gold level for parking it more than half the time (assuming it's reachable on a gold layout), then the route is too narrow (sucks).

Don't confuse lack of skill with a hole that sucks.



That's just plain good advice.

Don't give a baby a Zippo lighter.

If the skill required is above gold level for parking it more than half the time (assuming it's reachable on a gold layout), then the route is too narrow (sucks).



Unless, of course, the hole was designed using the Close-Range Par method.
:o:D

I think Stevie Wonder designed that hole.

Sucks? Hmmm IMO it blows.

Come on that is a cobra on a hyzer release nice and hard or an easy hyzer release with the orc....I mean really if you can't throw two 125ft shots straight with your putter or equivlent then you got more problems than trying to design disc golf holes....If it don't get harder WE won't get any better :cool::D

width/length down to 3% is still good in my books.

That allows down to 9' on a 300' hole, perfect. For comparison, a couch is 7' long.

I could live with 5%, but it wouldn't be as much of a challenge.