I've been playing in PDGA tournaments in California for over 10 years, and most courses have cement tees and well thought out fairways that make the game fun and challenging to play on, however there are a few courses that still have dirt or sandy tee boxes, various basket heights and questionable fairways. The PDGA needs to be have a set of standards along with the rules in place, that make the TD's of these tournaments comply with, whether the courses are temp or permanent. The set of standards should include level cement or the rubber tees which have to be with in a certain size, baskets that have to be a certain measurement from the ground and fairways that make some sence. This will give the game credibility as well as make the game more equally playable for all players alike.

To say the least about this , I know of MANY courses , since they are in certain parks that cannot have cement or rubber tee pads ( even temp ones )

Standards are more prevelent at higher tourneys ( some B and most A tiers ) however just today I played a B tier event that all grass tee pads and mostly uphill ( not even level ) but the course layout was SUPERB

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I understand some parks not putting in cement tees, but that is why they make temporary rubber tees which are fine. For this sport to ever take off it will have to have standards to make courses by and most AM's don't understand that this game is not about accidentally getting through a crowded fairway, its about the shot made with the intent of throwing down the fairway to make the shot. If you play on clear defined fairways and I don't necessary mean large open area just defined and you are able to see the basket on holes within 400 ft that are not dog legs but baskets not hidden behind trees. You live in PA and the course in Knob Hill is excellent and I love playing there. That course is a perfect course as far as I'm concerned

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I understand some parks not putting in cement tees, but that is why they make temporary rubber tees which are fine. For this sport to ever take off it will have to have standards to make courses by and most AM's don't understand that this game is not about accidentally getting through a crowded fairway, its about the shot made with the intent of throwing down the fairway to make the shot. If you play on clear defined fairways and I don't necessary mean large open area just defined and you are able to see the basket on holes within 400 ft that are not dog legs but baskets not hidden behind trees. You live in PA and the course in Knob Hill is excellent and I love playing there. That course is a perfect course as far as I'm concerned



Yeah except the landing area on hole one!

I've been playing in PDGA tournaments in California for over 10 years, and most courses have cement tees and well thought out fairways that make the game fun and challenging to play on, however there are a few courses that still have dirt or sandy tee boxes, various basket heights and questionable fairways. The PDGA needs to be have a set of standards along with the rules in place, that make the TD's of these tournaments comply with, whether the courses are temp or permanent. The set of standards should include level cement or the rubber tees which have to be with in a certain size, baskets that have to be a certain measurement from the ground and fairways that make some sence. This will give the game credibility as well as make the game more equally playable for all players alike.



You payin'? The PDGA does have basket standards, but fairway standards is pushing it, the same as it would be in Ball Golf. But the cost of implementing any set of standards is going to kill the process before it starts. You might argue that World events and NT's should but you would immediately kill several NT events that are excellent but have grass Tees.

Some effort has been made in this direction at least for Worlds and some majors with PDGA course consultants going out in advance before sites get approved and also before events to make sure the courses have been marked and set up properly. The problem with extending any type of standards beyond majors to NTs and lower tiers is that most standards suggested (like hard surface tees or reserving park only for DG) would eliminate some tournaments that might be done well on other merits such as The Memorial. The standards that have been pretty well followed in the past few years for NTs are: using PDGA approved baskets of the same type on each course and using courses with SSAs of 49 or higher. Beyond that, it's going to take time for some of the other potential standards to be added.

Chuck there are courses being built every day and if we want this game to go forward we need to press the standard at the point before the course is built. Have some course ideas for what makes a championship course on line by the PDGA and if asked have a consultant who can assist it the design. 10 years passes fast and if we start now I will still be able to play on some awesome courses, but we must start now..

I think you're missing or not aware of some of the advances that have quietly been made in the past few years:
- First, check out the PDGA Course Development guidelines here: www.pdga.com/cd_start.php (http://www.pdga.com/cd_start.php)
- The PDGA Course Evaluation process is a big step toward improving existing courses.
- There are now over 100 members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group who are implementing the higher guidelines in their new designs.
- Course Design training materials are in the process of being developed.
- These principles are being implemented in the courses at our new IDGC in Georgia and regional development center in Highbridge to use in that training.

Players can help in their own areas by pointing Parks Depts and those involved with developing courses toward these design guidelines and resources to try and improve future designs.

We must demand better Tees and fairways for tournament and casual play, and the PDGA is needs to be under the gun to make it happen. :D

The hard-nosed approach is not going to work. We have to go for small victories here and there. On my latest public course, I pushed for an area that was set aside for disc golf only; no other uses. There is one area that gets used as a parking lot once a year, but other than that, there are no walking trails, bike trails, picnic tables, etc., interfering with golf. Most other public courses I've seen and played have some other use going on in or around the course that causes conflicts. I'm sure that others will agree that having a disc-golf-only piece of land is a major step forward for a public park course.

This sport is so young and we have come a long way in our 30-some years of organization. Chuck's efforts towards course design standards are one example of steps in the right direction. It will take us a bit more time though before we get to the point of having a minimum standard that is consistently high quality from course to course, locality to locality. When we get to the point where disc golfers will refuse to play on courses that are junk, then the median course quality will increase. But since there are folks out there that are so desperate for a course that they will support one that is less than acceptable, the median quality will remain on the low side.

Natural tees can be high quality, it just takes more effort to make them so, especially if there is high traffic at the course. Concrete tees may cost you 10 grand, but they are low maintenance. Our task is to educate the entities that pay for these facilities to be installed to the point that they understand that disc golf is not glorified lawn darts and is a sport that needs to be taken seriously and accordingly, deserves quality facilities of a high standard.

I am referring to the existing courses that have rutted dirt or sand tees. We put 18 cement tees on our course and we spent less than 100 bucks each. However if the park will not allow permanent tees then the rubber tees work fine, and I am talking about putting them out for tourneys. Do some fund raisers on your course to raise money for the tee, they don't cost that much and I think that is a good place to start. Fairways on new courses need to be designed by pros who have lots of touring experience, not your local beer drinking AM who can barely throw a disc, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone but I know a couple courses that the local AMs have screwed up.

My attitude about non-optimal tee pads is this: pretend that the hole is 300-450 longer and you are taking your approach shot, or fairway drive (2nd drive). The reality is that everyone plays from the same tees. That is the "pure competition" part of my attitude.

I played yesterday on a course that was very thumber friendly (thumbers are the only legit throw on 6 of the 18 holes). I got smoked by a guy who rarely beats me on other courses since he has a great thumber and I don't throw thumbers. Same deal with uneven or slippery tee pads - it favors those who have the skill developed to play well from the fairway.

The other part of my attitude is that it is good to have things good looking, professional, slick, well maintained, safe, etc.

Fairways on new courses need to be designed by pros who have lots of touring experience, not your local beer drinking AM who can barely throw a disc, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone but I know a couple courses that the local AMs have screwed up.



Well, I'm a beer lover for sure, and an Am with an extremely low rating since I generally don't play tournaments. But I can assure you that the courses I've been involved with are considered the best in Va. by pros as well as other designers.

Sorry to shoot holes in your theory, but it's flawed and an easy target.

Great topic for discussion. I approached the PDGA a couple of years ago about providing Launch Pad rubber tee pads for use at National Tour events. The idea would be to have a set or 2 of rubber tee pads that would ship (or be driven) to each event for use by the tournament director as they see fit. The logistics of transporting 1000’s of pounds of rubber however is pretty tricky but not impossible. If tournament players see the value in having improved pads (rubber or concrete) at their events, I will get involved with helping to find a way!

One thing I have done with a few cities / clubs is to sell them a set of pads for a course they are upgrading, but 1st use the pads on their tournament course. In one case a parks department bought pads for 2 different 9- hole courses but used the pads for a PDGA event on a temporary tournament course 1st. After the tournament weekend the pads went to the new 2 - 9 hole courses and everyone was happy.

DISConcepts Launch Pads are now on 25+ courses and in 15 different states. We have been used at the USDGC and Pro Worlds for the last few years and at many high-profile tournaments around the US. If you have a course and or tournament that needs rubber or concrete tee pads give me a call, email or visit our website for information. www.disconcepts.com (http://www.disconcepts.com)

I hope we never see a "standard basket height" I love playing courses with elevated baskets and a lower basket every now and then is not bad either. It makes you think, it adds variety. It kinda of like a sloped green in ball golf.

I agree. And I think many of the course designers agree as long as the variance in height isn't "abused." In other words, having a couple tall baskets and maybe a short one out of 18 adds some putting challenge to a course, especially when there isn't much elevation available.

The most glaring deficit in our standards is not fixing the gap height between the top of the basket and the bottom of the chain support. Of course, since our baskets are still PDGA legal even if the chains are removed, it would seem that's an even bigger deficit in the standards. In other words, the TD could remove all of the chains from the baskets for an A-tier and the baskets would meet the uniformity guideline and PDGA technical approval as it currently exists.

I hope we never see a "standard basket height" I love playing courses with elevated baskets and a lower basket every now and then is not bad either. It makes you think, it adds variety. It kinda of like a sloped green in ball golf.



I agree with this, however, if a basket is placed on top of something, the basket is still standard.

I just want to see some standardization of basket sizes regarding heights (meaning distance beetween the top of the chains and the top of the basket) and widths.

I agree about fixing the gap between the top of the basket and the bottom of the chain support. This is analogous to having the same cup size on all ball golf courses.

I also agree that raised and lowered baskets can provide a good challenge, but I don't think altering the pole length is the way to do it. Someone posted some pictures recently of a place where the bottom of the lower portion of the basket was several feet off the ground, perhaps even at my eye level (I'm 6' 3"). I appreciate the creative thinking that goes into that, but I think it's inappropriate for serious disc golf competition.

I think this may be an area where disc golf course designers should consider manipulating the land around the putting green by creating a mound or scooping out a bowl-shaped area for the target.

This setup plays fair but the trees would not survive if buried in a mound of dirt, even though we have the bulldozers to do it. There's a step on the back side of the trees if shorter folks need help in disc retrieval. The pipe is just dangling because the basket is wedged perfectly level among the trees. It looks taller than it is with the bottom of the basket at about 5 feet off the ground. Some older divisions will be playing this #17 basket on Woodland Greens at PW2007.

http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/wg17%20basket.jpg

see I hate stuff like that placement that Chuck posted.

If you are 3 feet left of where that guy is, you have no putt.

While on the conversation of pin placements....

I'm surpirsed no one has mentioned the imfamous 12th hole at Trophy Lakes in Charleston SC. Par 4.

The pin is literally in the ground. It's a regular basket, just dug into the ground. The top of the basket (meaning the bottom of the chains) is just above ground level so a roller can not go in without a hop (although in the past, it was in the ground and someone dueced it with a roller from like 300 out). The top of basket (meaning the very top where the number plate is) is about knee high.

While people think it's fun or cool or whatever, I find it really stupid. I wish someone had a pic of it to post.

ECU alumni think alike :D

There is no place in the 10m circle where you do not have a legitimate skillful putt. We tested it with several players and all positions have a clean shot with a straddle. The trees aren't as much of a block as it might seem even when one is directly in line. And they work well to make the target wider with ricochet shots being legit options throwing slightly wider than normal from some positions. The adjustments in your putting style are no different from what you have to do when you're forced to stand on uneven boulders (Renny 9/16) or shooting around bushes. The tree positions are easily seen so that players can make an upshot to positions that provide an easier putt which is another legit skill. One benefit compared with a mound is if you miss, you don't risk rollaways since the disc just drops to the forest floor rather than possibly roll.

what happens to the hole's "worthiness" score because of those trees? i remember one lone tree about 20 feet from the pin that was criticized two or three years ago in preperation for Am worlds. this hole has three, within a foot of the pin!

i'm with MTL... these configurations CAN be picturesque, but one cannot deny that it looks a bit gimmicky.

Hole #5 at Pease here in Austin is similar. IMO, there is nothing wrong with the hole, since it is only 200 or so feet and offers three distinct landing zones for the bird. All of these landing zones are reasonable, given the short distance. At 300 feet, I would consider it a bit flukey. As an upshot on a par 4, it might be reasonable again.

Pin placements like this have to be judged against the demands of the shot needed to reach them. They may be quite reasonable/fair, or quite unreasonable/unfair. It depends. No criteria requiring unobstructed putts from distance X will ever make much sense, IMO.

i remember one lone tree about 20 feet from the pin that was criticized two or three years ago in preperation for Am worlds.



Completely different situation. That lone tree on hole 2 at Big Creek was criticized for making it easy to just throw into it off the tee and drop by the basket. This is a two shot hole and it wouldn't be a good strategy to throw at these trees on an upshot hoping for a knock down. More likely they would direct the disc farther from the pin than just trying to lay up.

whats the rest of this hole like? is the approach open, narrow, xxx ?

It's a short technical dogleg to the left. Note: the whole course is for rec players & families and set at a white level. The tee shot is a sharp righty turnover down a 35ft wide corridor about 150'-175' to the landing area which is at least 50 by 50. This leaves a slightly uphill shot to the pin from 75-125 thru a handful small scattered tree trunks.

these configurations CAN be picturesque, but one cannot deny that it looks a bit gimmicky.



Asthetics will vary from designer to designer and accordingly, what's gimmicky to one will be cool to another, and I think it's important to respect that. But I think the more gimmicky it looks, the less respect disc golf will receive from the public at large. How many of you have told people that you play disc golf and gotten a snicker or a laugh in return? Incorporating gimmicky-looking elements into a design is not going to further efforts to get respect for disc golf. I feel it is very important to balance the individuality and unique character of disc golf with course asthetics.

heres some more pin placements to discuss at Sugaw Creek in Charlotte.

http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_6b.jpg

I personally don't mind this. The basket size is fair.

This next one however....

http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_14b.jpg

Trust me when I say that 3 - 5 feet makes a HUGE difference on a putt on this hole.

The only thing that looks incomplete from a natural look is the pipe hanging down unsecured. I could see cutting the pipe off flush with the bottom of the basket. It looks just as natural as baskets in boulder piles and nicer than some of the less than eye appealing elevated baskets, pine bales and bamboo fences at our feature event.

I just played these a few weeks ago before Worlds. No problem with either one but I could see removing one or two trunks on the one side of basket in the bottom picture. Aesthetics are not as good as they maybe could be.

The first one is ugly. It could be improved by piling dirt around it to hide the ugly tires and sewer pipe and also to help disc retrieval. I don't want to look at sewer pipe when I play golf.

The second one isn't so bad, but I agree with Chuck that a few branches/trunks could go. And since it's a crepe myrtle, you could mulch around the bottom to hide the tires and not kill the tree.

The second one isn't so bad, but I agree with Chuck that a few branches/trunks could go. And since it's a crepe myrtle, you could mulch around the bottom to hide the tires and not kill the tree.



Heck, since it is crepe myrtle, removing a couple of branches will only result in four more springing up from where you cut the old one out.

As I read the posts here, its looking like our professional disc golf sport is headed to a pure recreation sport only. The beer companies should be kicking in the bucks if they would just read these posts.

What a stupid statement, I'm sorry. Frankly, as a player much more geared to the recreational side than the competitive pro side, most posts on these boards want to push it toward the purely competitive side.
Regardless, just because SOME courses are putting in SOME holes that you don't like, don't think are right, are too "cutesy" for your taste, you want to condemn the whole thing? What an egotistical outlook you have. You're the adjucator of taste for the entire sport? Only your ideas are good ones?

sheesh.

asbestos suit is not coming out. I have no misgivings about these comments.

We could only be so fortunate as sports like snowboarding, skateboarding and other X-sports that have gotten more "gimmicky" in their equipment and courses to add challenge. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I don't think you have read what I have written. My comment is about what I have read and what I have read sounds to me like a sport based on just have a good time with out any standards attached. May as well revert to playing from tree to tree, or why even throw a Frisbee lets go back to rocks and beer bottles in the alley, with no rules and no parameters at all, huh, sound more like it. BAH!

Well, Norcal could start by not hanging on to the flukey 2m rule. :D

And, I hope you understand many of us in positions to do so would like to improve the standards but only have so much leverage to do so.

Gee Chuck that's just the comment I'm talking about. The 2m rule is set in place to save you folks who haven't the strength to throw far and high as to crash down through the tree and get close to the basket. If your a gambling man you know there could be a penalty for your choice. Do away with the rule why should I care if I can the blast up into the trees with out any penalty. Its your choice.. :D

So, it's only standards you agree with not what the PDGA Rules group has agreed with then? Now you see the challenge regarding getting standards pinned down...

Chuck there are many things that need to be worked on with the PDGA rules and standards, but I brought up standards as we have not pinned them down in some areas I think are weak.

Just showing that those of us trying can't always move as fast as some would like and even we would like. And, even when we move a step forward, not everyone comes along without kicking and screaming.

I know, but if we make the rules and standards make sense, then eventually the rest of the folks will abide, and I know there are those who will not, but I don't play with that crowd and do not cater to them either. They give nothing to disc golf and will get same in return. Hold the hard line and go forward.

I know, but if we make the rules and standards make sense, then eventually the rest of the folks will abide.



Rules: our rulebook is good, but like most things has room for improvement. Some of the writing isn't specific enough, some is overly wordy, some topics aren't covered, and the index needs to be more detailed, but there is nothing fundamentally flawed about the book.

Standards: I agree that at the level of the NT we could use some tighter standards, so as to create a product that has a consistent format and flavor to aid in the selling of the Tour to National sponsors. If I were the tour manager, the first thing I'd do would be to reduce the number of NT events and raise the bar for those events with regards to course and sponsorship.

I think that the NT needs to require TD's to raise a certain $ amount of sponsorship cash. That amount needs to be significant, say $5,000 to start and go up every year. I also think that part of our membership dues should go to subsidizing the purses for the NT's, say $5,000 X 6 events = $30,000 to start.

Regarding courses, I'd require that the all the courses be 18 holes, at least par 62, and have an SSA of at least 95% of par. Beyond that I'd put out some general course guidelines, largely to do with tee areas and the capacity to accomodate spectators and video crews safely. As far as individual hole designs and visual aesthetics are concerned, that's purely a designer/td call. I'd hate to see it written in stone how far baskets could be from OB, drop-off's, trees, bushes, etc. or a minimum fairway width to shot length ratio, etc. I think that's unecessary and would stifle the creative growth of course design evolution. If an NT TD comes up with the $5,000, gets approval to be on the tour, and has a goofy, flukey, weird, or just plain wtf hole that he/she wants to test out on the tournament crowd, just let them. After a couple hundred rounds have been played over the weekend they'll either be validated with "I thought that hole was stupid at first, but now I see what you were thinking and it's one of my favorites on the course" or they'll be sent back to the drawing board for the next year.

I was totally agreeing with you thinking hey this guy understands whats going on.

Then I read this....


Regarding courses, I'd require that the all the courses be 18 holes, at least par 62, and have an SSA of at least 95% of par.



Par 62 and above courses are great, don't get my wrong I love them. But if I was new guy to the game and went out to a course and threw 85 times and it took 3 - 4 hours to play - I'd say "screw that, I'm not going to do that."

Sure, those of us with PDGA numbers and some skill love the challenge of a tough course, but recreational golfers see a course where we shoot in the 40's everytime as the same challenge as we see a course we can barely break 60 on.

Don't alienate the roots of the game and the foundations of the sport. Eliminating the newer player from the game makes our sport lessen in numbers over time.

One standard I do like is the basket rule for NT's. It is my understanding that a course must have the same type of basket on every hole for that course to host a NT. It is a step in the correct direction for sure.

I may be accused, and rightly guilty of, building courses with some holes that tend to resemble ball golf holes, but folks seem to like them and I've been told by the top local pros that they are indeed challenging AND beautiful. My philosophy is that I want to play on courses that are park-like and asthetically pleasing. I don't want to play golf in a place where I feel like I'm at a carnival, or a whacky golf facility with windmills and clown mouths, or a former dump.

First impressions are important. If you take a potential non-disc-golfing sponsor out to see your course and it looks goofy or shoddy, I think your chances of landing the sponsorship are low. If you have something they can relate to, i.e. a beautiful park-like atmosphere, your chances of making a good impression and landing the sponsorship are higher.

Like Chuck said, designers/builders can't always get what they want, but if they try sometime, they just might find, they get what they need.

Most of what I do in disc golf is geared towards the pros and competition, even though I am an Am player and do not play in tournaments for the most part. I want to see this sport take off and grow. Raising the course standards is a big part of that, IMO.

I got the impression he was talking about courses for NT events, not all courses.

I agree that having par 3 pitch & putt courses is important for the rec player to enjoy the game, but pros at NT events shouldn't be playing them. The PGA doesn't use executive par 3 courses for major tournaments and neither should the PDGA.

I've made this arguement many times and here I go again.

Pitch and putt courses have a place. They make a golfer be on his game. If you only have one shot to get to the pin, then you have to execute it right there and then. Par 4's and 5's allow the golfer to make a mistake and still make birdie.

While I'm def. not a fan of courses with an SSA of 45 or below, I think that a course around 49 is a solid course. If an SSA is around 49, this probably means that the courses offers many birdie opportunities, but they certainly are not simple holes.

Course like this provide score seperation. Players will shoot between 43 and 54 on this course in the open division almost every round.

FYI: I think the Golden State Classic is the only NT this year that would meet your proposed 59 SSA guideline (95% of par 62) with Beaver State being close. The Memorial and Skylands each had one course layout of the 3 or 4 that would meet the SSA goals. As you mention though, if the NT host is willing and able to raise the money shouldn't they have the option of using 24 or 27 hole courses and some with less than 59 SSAs if you're also giving them the freedom to have less than "normally" acceptable or quirky holes on the courses?

The current PDGA guidelines indicate that 49 SSA is the low end of acceptable for the Open division at NTs and Majors. An 18-hole ball golf executive course with par around 58-60 is their equivalent to our SSA 49 courses. That executive course might provide excellent scoring separation among elite ball golfers and yet they still don't use those courses for championships. I'm a huge fan of scoring separation but that alone isn't the only reason for selecting courses for championships.

I'm not saying that a course full of wacky holes should get approval to be an NT, I'm just saying that there's a danger in imposing overly-regimented hole design standards, that being that some good, new concepts may never see the light of day at the highest level.

I disagree with the philosophy that courses need to be par 54 in order to appeal to beginners. I started hitting golf balls at 9, but my dad wouldn't let me on the golf course until I'd demonstrated some basic skills. After hitting balls at the school for a year, I finally got the opportunity to play and shot 92 for 9 holes! Did that disuade me from continuing to play? Far from it, and the next year as my scores dropped and dropped and dropped until I was in the mid 50's was the most gratifying year of golf I've ever had.

A well designed, complete disc golf course needs to take maximum advantage of the land available and have at least three sets of tees for different skill levels. If that means there's only room for a par 54 course (or a par 27, 9 holer) then that's fine, but I hate to see a beautiful park where there's plenty of room for a par 70 course, but the design uses 2/3 of the park for a par 54 course, with the plan to add another 9 holes of par 3 "golf" later.

IMO, more than 18 holes = wasted opportunity!

Prime example to learn from: the Metroparks in Michigan. These courses are on great properties with the amenities of multiple cement tees, tee signs, trash cans, bathrooms, water, etc. They've hosted big tournaments including the worlds and feature many sweet holes. I cannot fault those that worked hard to get those courses in the ground and pushed hard to add the "letter" holes and additional courses.
Unfortunately the 24 hole "standard" means the lost opportunity to have awesome 18 hole, par 70 layouts. And beginners do not need to fear such a layout. A 900+ par 5 from the gold tees can play at 800 blue, 725 white, 580 red, and 480 from the green tees, for instance.

There is still lots of room for more "classic" disc golf layouts that serve to introduce players to the sport, but particularly at the NT level, we're selling ourselves way short if we don't aspire to emulate what's great about golf and couple that with what's great about our sport's more egalitarian culture.

Warwick is a great example of a course where you have an active pro in charge and a club that votes on any course changes before they are set in motion. Their baskets are all mach 3 and are at acceptable heights, cement tees and well groomed fairways, even their tight holes have fairways that are well thought out with one exception, hole 18, a par 5 which crosses other fairways, this course is perfect and beautiful and is a good example of a NT course. They have an adopt a hole program where not one tree, branch or shrub is removed without being carefully thought out and all who have adopted holes worked diligently to make their hole the best it could be for this years NT. I was very impressed with the Skylands club.

I hate to see a beautiful park where there's plenty of room for a par 70 course, but the design uses 2/3 of the park for a par 54 course



A course I helped with, The Meadow in Greenville NC, has been accussed of not using all the land available. We were not granted to use the entire piece of property.

Many times this is the case and people judge a course based on what is there instead of what was given to them to use.

I just want to say that this is an exemplary discussion. No one is saying "I'm right and you're wrong"; on the contrary, everyone is making good points about things to consider.

I wish there were more threads like this!

I agree this is a great discussion.

fairways that are well thought out with one exception, hole 18, a par 5 which crosses other fairways,



Hole 18 at Warwick does not cross other fairways.

It plays in between the fairways of holes 15 and holes 16. Errant shots on these holes may sometimes find themselves on the fairway of another hole, but they do not cross.

"Jane, you ignorant slut!" (Perhaps too old a reference for some of you :D)

In the case of Warwick blue pins on 5, 6 & 7 for examples, there would be little difference relative to the current elevation challenges already existing on these holes in the putting area if the baskets were up to 2 feet higher or a foot lower. A uniform basket height rule would unnecessarily restrict designers from creating fair putting challenges, especially on properties that lack the great terrain places like Warwick have naturally.

:DHey Jeff
I toured the east coast last year and we played on 21 courses from Ohio to PA a month before the worlds and we used your web page to get an idea of good courses to play on and found most to be what was described, for instance Knob Hill PA, WOW! what a course, I will play in their tourney next year for sure. This year while playing at Warwick hole 18 which when played at the par 5 is in the middle of some other fairways and we had to wait for players to finish their shots every time we played the hole. It is not a bad hole it is just the only hole that seemed to get in the way of play. Thanks again for your web page.

I dont think you understand what Im saying about standard basket height Chuck, Im talking about from the ground to basket height, not what hill its on or not.

I think I do understand. I'm saying the height from where the anchor tab is located at ground level to the bottom of the basket does not need to be a specific height on all holes. Designers should be allowed to vary this height on maybe up to a 1/3 of the holes within a range maybe a foot shorter to 3 feet or so higher than the standard (which itself isn't currently that standard with a 5" variance allowed).

The height that isn't locked down and should be is from the top of the basket to the bottom of the chain support. That's what should be our standard "hole" in this sport although in our case it's a fixed size cylinder.

"Designers should be allowed to vary this height on maybe up to a 1/3 of the holes within a range maybe a foot shorter to 3 feet or so higher than the standard (which itself isn't currently that standard with a 5" variance allowed)."

That make no sence to me at all. Why would you want the basket to be higher or lower than it was made for? What is important is the top lip of the basket height, that is what we get used to putting at. :confused:

I think that's his point.

Courses without natural hills can't force an uphill or downhill putt. It's a skill that all players should have, but players in the flat lands never get a chance to put up or down at a basket.

Thanks for the kind words about my website, Stoops. :cool:

Did you happen to pick up a scorecard while you were at Warwick? I wish there was an online scorecard or map of the course to show you that this hole does not actually cross any other fairway. The problems one typically runs into that slow up play are when someone from hole 15 throws to the right and high up on the hillside. An errant roller or airshot from hole 16 may sometimes find its way into hole 18's fairway. Additionally, a poor roller on hole 18 may find its way down onto hole 15's fairway. But trust me, they do not cross.

Whether fairways actually cross or not, for Warwick 18 it would still show up as "some problems" in the fairway interference category on an evaluation.

What is important is the top lip of the basket height, that is what we get used to putting at. :confused:


You should see hole 3 @ Cameron West in Waco , Texas, literally the bottom of the basket is no more that 10-12 inches off the ground! Have fun putting on that one! It is always a downhill putt on level ground! :)

Larry: I understand your point, appearances can be deceiving. I just think that if we've been given enough land for a real course, it's a shame to design a pitch 'n' putt.

As I said, I think there's a role for new par 54's to serve, but I think that they should be the exception, not the rule. Also, we need to up the bar when someone asks "how much room do you need for a course" to be 50-100 acres instead of 20-30 and suggest that greens fees should be $2-3 for a pitch-n-putt and $5-15 for a sweet real course.

I've yet to see any disc golf course that did not have at least one hole where an errant shot would produce fairway interference during a tournament with foursomes on all 18 holes.

I've yet to see any disc golf course that would not show up as "some problems" in the fairway interference category on an evaluation.

I would agree. I haven't seen a course that didn't have an SP on one or more holes in this category. It doesn't mean things can't be better on many courses. Jeff was just pointing that out on Warwick 18, primarily when 15 is playing to the blue pin.

What is important is the top lip of the basket height, that is what we get used to putting at. :confused:


You should see hole 3 @ Cameron West in Waco , Texas, literally the bottom of the basket is no more that 10-12 inches off the ground! Have fun putting on that one! It is always a downhill putt on level ground! :)



Leave the midget basket alone. That's the only basket I regularly putt at from my knees.

Now I know what they really meant when someone said Cam West would bring you to your knees :D

Now I know what they really meant when someone said Cam West would bring you to your knees :D



Nice, but you're confused. :)

Cameron West = Cameron Park (http://www.pdga.com/course/courses_by_city.php?id=855)
Cameron East is the bEast. (http://www.pdga.com/course/courses_by_city.php?id=1901)

If TDs had gotten these names correct over the years we wouldn't have SSA values on file from both courses under the same name either :eek:

If TDs had gotten these names correct over the years we wouldn't have SSA values on file from both courses under the same name either :eek:



:confused:

I love TDs.

I think you're touching on a very important point Denny. We have a regularly scheduled battle here in Houston about course development and what should be the norm. There is a large and powerful contingent that feels most if not all courses should be developed to attract new players, i.e. the courses should be pitch and putt. There is a smaller vocal group that feels all courses should be developed for the accomplished Pro and if necessary should have smaller Tees for beginners.


Here is the question: should we be building tough or rookie ready courses? There seems to be two types of players, competitive ones, and what I will refer to as casual players. Competitive players will look for a challenge no matter where they are, i.e. rookie or not. Casual, in the way I mean it are players who are going to be intimidated by that challenge. As it is given by those who want to build courses for them, they get intimidated/frustrated by a hard course.

I have to wonder, is a player, rookie or not, that is intimidated by a course likely to be interested in long term competitive golf? Are we not making a mistake in developing for this type of player? Is this type of player likely to be interested in competitive golf and the PDGA?

I'm guessing not and I'm wondering if we need to rethink our approach to building courses in order to attract new players.

I understand that in Ball Golf there are many pitch and putt style courses. One has to ask the question, how do those courses do? Is there a huge body of average ball golfers just dying to play easier courses because they are intimidated by the big ones? Or is it possible that they play the pitch and putt courses because there isn't anything better available?

Last point, an observation. I ran into some rookies on one of our big courses here. They were getting eaten alive. I showed them the short tees and suggested they might have a better time there. They thanked me, played the next two holes short, and then went back to the long tees. Must have been competitive players. :D



I'm not saying that a course full of wacky holes should get approval to be an NT, I'm just saying that there's a danger in imposing overly-regimented hole design standards, that being that some good, new concepts may never see the light of day at the highest level.

I disagree with the philosophy that courses need to be par 54 in order to appeal to beginners. I started hitting golf balls at 9, but my dad wouldn't let me on the golf course until I'd demonstrated some basic skills. After hitting balls at the school for a year, I finally got the opportunity to play and shot 92 for 9 holes! Did that disuade me from continuing to play? Far from it, and the next year as my scores dropped and dropped and dropped until I was in the mid 50's was the most gratifying year of golf I've ever had.

A well designed, complete disc golf course needs to take maximum advantage of the land available and have at least three sets of tees for different skill levels. If that means there's only room for a par 54 course (or a par 27, 9 holer) then that's fine, but I hate to see a beautiful park where there's plenty of room for a par 70 course, but the design uses 2/3 of the park for a par 54 course, with the plan to add another 9 holes of par 3 "golf" later.

IMO, more than 18 holes = wasted opportunity!

Prime example to learn from: the Metroparks in Michigan. These courses are on great properties with the amenities of multiple cement tees, tee signs, trash cans, bathrooms, water, etc. They've hosted big tournaments including the worlds and feature many sweet holes. I cannot fault those that worked hard to get those courses in the ground and pushed hard to add the "letter" holes and additional courses.
Unfortunately the 24 hole "standard" means the lost opportunity to have awesome 18 hole, par 70 layouts. And beginners do not need to fear such a layout. A 900+ par 5 from the gold tees can play at 800 blue, 725 white, 580 red, and 480 from the green tees, for instance.

There is still lots of room for more "classic" disc golf layouts that serve to introduce players to the sport, but particularly at the NT level, we're selling ourselves way short if we don't aspire to emulate what's great about golf and couple that with what's great about our sport's more egalitarian culture.

Pitch and putt ball golf courses aren't necessarily easy courses, but are very limited on space. Every city or area needs a percentage of beginner courses as much as it needs a percentage of championship and competitive courses. I would guess that the ratios are probably 2:3:1.

Basically you should strive first for one of each. An advanced course with multiple tees/pins first, followed by a casual course, then a championship course.

Then a second advanced course, then a second casual course (if the first one is full all the time).

Then a third advanced course before another championship course.

You need the casual courses to get people started, and you need to keep them from being too crowded or new players won't start. But you need to keep them crowded enough that players will want to get away from the crowd and try one of the advanced courses every now and then.

The casual courses should basically always be full. The advanced courses should be busy on the weekends. The championship courses will generally only be full during or just before tournaments.

That's just the way I see it.
I'm probably wrong.

here's (http://www.golf2020.com/Reports/2004_frip.pdf) a good report that includes the total # of regulation golf courses and par 3 / executive from 1998 to 2004 with annual increases.

par 3 / executive courses make up only 8.5% of the total # of golf courses in the country.

it's very feasible to make a par 62+ disc golf course with 3-4 sets of tees that caters to a wide range of skill levels and affords everyone the opportunity to play golf. there is nothing inherently more frustrating for beginners to play a par 4 or par 5 compared to a par 3. it can be frustrating if the fairways are about 7 ft. wide throughout the course, or there are areas of deep, nasty shule to lose discs and get cut up in, or there's water just a few feet off the fairway to have discs deflect into, or the park's trashed, or the "local" disc golfers are loud, drunk, unfriendly, or all of the above. every one of those items can be found on par 54 courses.

i've seen many cases where the advanced and pro players abandon the rec course in favor of the competitive course and the rec course gradually becomes a dilapidated eyesore that is marginally playable.

i'd much rather see one awesome course with appropriate tees, multiple basket locations, sweet tee signs, benches, water, bathrooms, constant play that discourages vandals, the opportunity for beginner players to watch and play with advanced players and see what can be done with golf discs than to segregate our player base and make it less likely that recreational players will make the leap into competitive golf.

when that first course is packed with people paying $5-$15 per round then the case can be made to build another one.

if you think that $10 is too much to pay for a sweet round of disc golf, then you've got no business crying about our lack of sponsorship. you can still practice 5 days a week at any park for free (no $7-9 to hit a bucket of golf balls) and then play 2 awesome rounds per week for $20. I used to average 2 rounds of golf per week at $35 + 4 buckets of balls at $6 + 1/2 dozen balls at $20 per dozen = $104 per week, not to mention the hot dogs and beverages.

you also have to realize that executive / par 3 courses are not the norm. They are an addition much later in the sport.

In disc golf, par 3 courses were first. The tougher par 62+ courses are the new thing in disc golf. This has a lot to do with it. To expect less that 10% of courses to par 3 courses is just silly b/c of the way we started.

see I hate stuff like that placement that Chuck posted.

If you are 3 feet left of where that guy is, you have no putt.



But I bet he rated it high. :D

To expect less that 10% of courses to par 3 courses is just silly b/c of the way we started.


that's not my expectation, but i would like to see 70-80% of new courses from here on be par 62+. yes, there are reasons why it can't be that way in every situation, but i strongly disagree with the contention that par 54 is "better" because it's more accesible for beginners. accesibility boils down to aesthetics and designing appropriate tees for different skill levels. if someone has never played disc golf before and their only exposure to the concept of "golf" has been by playing or watching golf on tv, then they do not have to be conditioned to think that par 54 is the norm and they won't cry about how they have to throw the disc more than once per hole.

and if you want to go back to the origins of golf: par 70 wasn't the norm, 18 holes wasn't the norm, and formalized courses didn't exist. there were just a bunch of greens and it was kind of like U PICK 'EM GORILLA SKINS. basically, whoever had the tee would drop their ball just off the green they just played to and pick the next hole and off they'd go. that's how the rule defining the teeing area as up to 2 clublengths behind the box came about.

while there are a few places where your group can rent a traditional "course" like that, it's definitely not the norm now, and almost nobody argues that it should be.

i'd much rather see one awesome course with appropriate tees, multiple basket locations, sweet tee signs, benches, water, bathrooms, constant play that discourages vandals, the opportunity for beginner players to watch and play with advanced players and see what can be done with golf discs.



Look no further than Tyler State Park in Newtown, PA. 27 holes, 3 pin placements on nearly every hole, with the front 18 in the C-pins now playing as a par 70 (with an SSA not far off). 9 additional temp holes have been added for our A-tier event in 2 weeks, Sept. 16 and 17, the Eric C. Yetter Champions Cup. If you want to play a beautiful, challenging, and fair course run by one of the best clubs there is, check out www.bcdga.org (http://www.bcdga.org)

Beginners do not know what the word Par means much less how long a long hole is and what the name bogie means either, they play for fun. People who play in tournaments are people who will probably play till they get to the next level and that level will be on the order of a more challenging course with standards they have already learned. Now if there are no standards they will play to what ever level they have learned and on a great course that will hurt them, basket heights, tee configuration, and readable fairways.

I suggest that posters take a quick look at what we've recommended right on the main PDGA course development document. It's certainly in line with much of the thinking here. Read section 1 on SPACE: www.pdga.com/makecrse.php (http://www.pdga.com/makecrse.php)

and it was kind of like U PICK 'EM GORILLA SKINS.....pick the next hole and off they'd go.




glad you still remember the good ol' days in miami playing buck a hole :D

i'd much rather see one awesome course with appropriate tees, multiple basket locations, sweet tee signs, benches, water, bathrooms, constant play that discourages vandals, the opportunity for beginner players to watch and play with advanced players and see what can be done with golf discs.

Look no further than Tyler State Park in Newtown, PA.

This is why we won't get there in our lifetimes, Denny. You talk about applying golf par values to our game and someone points to a par 3 course as their example of what they think you are talking about. Newton PA would be what Denny is talking about if they would bag nine of the baskets to make 18 holes that are par 72, instead of having 27 holes that amateurs can shoot in the 70s. That course played to less than par 3 per hole at the tournament I looked at.

How many 18 hole courses do we have in this country, or the world for that matter, where an intermediate rated player would shoot in the 80s? That course is what people like Denny are talking about when they are talking about par 72 disc golf.

I've only seen one, the temporary course we had out at Byron now and then. The best Cali round out there ever was a 68 by Al Schack. http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4703 The best I ever played it in singles when I was 929 rated was an 80.

That was a championship par 72 disc golf course.

I think this sport will forever be hamstrung by the knucklehead ideas that beginners should be able to shoot "par" after a couple of rounds and that a good course is one that challenges the pros to get 3s sometimes.

Newton PA would be what Denny is talking about if they would bag nine of the baskets to make 18 holes that are par 72, instead of having 27 holes that amateurs can shoot in the 70s.



Look a little closer. Tyler is a true par 70 for the first 18 holes in the C positions used for events. It has some of the best wooded pro level par 4s & 5s in the country.

My mistake then. The tournament information on-line does not show how many holes they played, http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6041#Advanced , but good Advanced players shot 70s followed by 50s so i thought that was 27 followed by 18.

Going further back, it looks like they have a lot of course configurations, but prefer to play challenging par 3 executive style courses over the Championship SSA 65 course,
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=4712 , even when it is not necessary to accomodate the field. http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=4166

We have brought up our disc golfers with the lame idea that par should be 3 on every hole, so when someone designs a course with ball golf par values, the TD puts everyone on the junior girl tees where they can get their threes.

If you can get this Chuck, what this means is that for Highbridge to be commercially successful, it needs plenty of courses where the long tees have SSAs in the low 50s. Our players don't like to play the women's tees and they don't like golf, either.

Fairways on new courses need to be designed by pros who have lots of touring experience, not your local beer drinking AM who can barely throw a disc, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone but I know a couple courses that the local AMs have screwed up.



Would you say that Penn Valley has "Fair" fairways?

I believe that was "set up" by "local Pros" and is maintained by a "local Pro" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I can guess at some of the courses you are thinking of....

On concrete tees...ALOT of areas just wont allow it...
QUALITY Rubber Mats cost AT LEAST $100 ea AND wiegh in at 100+lbs ea.

Put those in a Public park and they will not last more than 4-5 years TOPS.......

Not everyone is "blessed" with the community backing that the Grass Valley/Penn Valley Areas have........ /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Some of us actually have to spend our OWN MONEY & TIME to create the courses we play :o:D

Well, Norcal could start by not hanging on to the flukey 2m rule. :D



Just as "Flukey" as My putt spitting out and "sitting" vs. Your putt spitting out and Rolling 30' away OB.

But I guess that is just "unlucky" :p

Your putt spitting out and Rolling 30' away OB.




Difference is that now one flukey issue can be resolved by not using the 2m rule. The spit cannot. However, many designers including myself are trying to add retaining walls/logs 15-20 feet below the basket to prevent bang-n-rolls either from going OB or just farther down the hill to reduce the flukes.

Your putt spitting out and Rolling 30' away OB.




Difference is that now one flukey issue can be resolved by not using the 2m rule. The spit cannot. <font color="red">Aw, BUT one of the major arguements to the 2MR was the "Luck" involved with your disc sticking in the tree </font> However, many designers including myself are trying to add retaining walls/logs 15-20 feet below the basket to prevent bang-n-rolls either from going OB or just farther down the hill to reduce the flukes. <font color="red">I like this...I am also going to use some sort of "Barrier" at "Twisted River Woods" in LaPine State Park
I dont want "unnecessary" visits into the Deschutes River :D </font>

My mistake then. The tournament information on-line does not show how many holes they played, http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6041#Advanced , but good Advanced players shot 70s followed by 50s so i thought that was 27 followed by 18.

Going further back, it looks like they have a lot of course configurations, but prefer to play challenging par 3 executive style courses over the Championship SSA 65 course,
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=4712 , even when it is not necessary to accomodate the field. http://www.pdga.com/tournament/course_ratings_by_tournament.php?TournID=4166



They hold several tournaments each year at Tyler State Park and utilize several different layouts, so people need to make sure they are referring to the right thing. <ul type="square"> For Supertour and A-tier events, they put the pins into all C positions, or a mixture of B &amp; C positions, and the course is a world-class challenge and one of the tops in the world.

For amateur-only and lower tiered tournament events, they keep it extremely beginner-friendly, which on many holes means a dead straight and mostly open 150-175 foot "drive" to the A position. You can throw a midrange or even a putter off most teepads. On some holes you just feel silly if you don't score a two.[/list]

If you can get this Chuck, what this means is that for Highbridge to be commercially successful, it needs plenty of courses where the long tees have SSAs in the low 50s. Our players don't like to play the women's tees and they don't like golf, either.




The most popular course is Blueberry Hill with over 50% of the rounds and a 54-57 SSA. That's much tougher than pitch-n-putt. Second, is our pitch-n-putt Woodland Greens at 46 SSA and about 4300 feet. Even this course has three legit par 4s with one being the most popular hole. (Yes, it's the triple tree basket pictured earlier on this thread.) The real pitch-n-putt 9 by the campground is popular due to easy access and it's lighted for daylong play.

The only course with an SSA over 60 is the Gold course. Players have no problem playing the shorter White tees which are cement and still play longer than any other course from the longs except some Granite layouts. And the new secret weapon to encourage players to play the Gold and Granite courses is pictured below. John just got two of these Twister golf carts and they've been a hit. They can only be rented for use on Gold and Granite so I suspect more players will get used to these longer courses with the carts making it a fun and less tiring experience.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/twister%20cart.jpg

BTW, Highbridge has gotten a huge boost in visits this summer with rec players from all over the Midwest with regulars coming from as far away as Ames and Davenport, Iowa. It's not the competitive players that will make or break the operation but the regular rec players that enjoy the fun things to do and the laidback uncrowded atmosphere at Highbridge on some pretty good courses.

"Would you say that Penn Valley has "Fair" fairways?

I believe that was "set up" by "local Pros" and is maintained by a "local Pro"

I can guess at some of the courses you are thinking of....

On concrete tees...ALOT of areas just wont allow it...
QUALITY Rubber Mats cost AT LEAST $100 ea AND wiegh in at 100+lbs ea.

Put those in a Public park and they will not last more than 4-5 years TOPS.......

Not everyone is "blessed" with the community backing that the Grass Valley/Penn Valley Areas have........

Some of us actually have to spend our OWN MONEY &amp; TIME to create the courses we play "


Ah' the great Magilla has spoken. Yes Mike of course Penn Valley has fairways that were well thought out and cement tees and benches and just so you know my old pal, we paid for all the tractor work that dug the 3 ponds, and built the giant mound on hole 6 and the wood for all the benches that 2 of our club members built and for all the cement poured it into forms that we built and leveled ourselves and we paid for all the tee signs as well (now thats a long sentence).. What about the rubber mats, they are in use at Zephyr Cove all year round and from what I saw when I played there a few month back they all look great. They have even gone through 2 harsh winters that I know of and if they last 5 years buy em as you need them. I was actually asking the TDs to use them for tournaments not have them in use all the time, but what the hay! Use em all year round. So what were you eluding to any way? :eek: :D:D

Nice offroad golf cart !!!!

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/twister%20cart.jpg

Beginners do not know what the word Par means much less how long a long hole is and what the name bogie means either, they play for fun.


Wrong, at courses I've played all over the country I hear beginners talking about how many over or under (sign) par they are. Most people are familiar with golf and the concepts of birdie/par/bogey whether or not they've ever played. It's only when they show up at a disc golf course and the local dinosaurs try to convince them that every hole in disc golf is a par 3 that some confusion enters into the picture.

Bruce: it's a good thing for the sport that there are many, many optimistic, progressive personalities that have seen the light and are taking action to bring the sport to a higher level. I'm sure glad that John Houck, Chuck, Harold & Jonathan, Reese, and Mike Barnett haven't let the conservative masses hold them back from pushing forward to bring their visions to reality. And I can't wait to get up to Pennsylvania to play those sweet new layouts!

Keith: I was hoping you were lurking out there. There's still two weeks left to book a cabin for disc golf cruise2. Are you thinking of playing/spectating for The Players Cup? I think I'll be making my return to tournament play in January at Kendall, any chance you'll make it down?

you have a pm..

Thanks to Chuck and Jeff for defending Tyler and setting the record straight.

We have 3 pin positions on all but one hole (which has 3 tees instead), and we try to utilize as many positions as possible. The first day of the Yetter (our A-tier in 2 weeks), we play all C-positions. Last year, 1-18 came out with an SSA of just over 65. Using that data, several holes have been improved to add some better scoring spreads (mostly on those holes coming out to 2.4-6 or 3.4-6) and to bump that SSA to right around 70, as close to our par as we can make it.

While we love our par 70 championship layout, with ~80 different pin positions we have a lot of challenging, interesting, and aesthetically pleasing holes to chose from and we like to mix it up for the players. Although the numbers may show an SSA of 54-56, playing one of Joe Mela's hand-picked layouts (that showcase our best holes and force you to shoot your best golf) might give you a different impression.

(On that note, I'd just like to point out real quick that sometimes golf isn't just about the numbers. This is probably the last thread I want to say this, but scoring spreads, SSAs, etc. are great information and very useful, but there's more to it than numbers.)

And while I admit that my first post was, of course, a shameless plug for the Yetter, I do know what I'm talking about and the condescending tone about our "par 3/executive" course is unneccessary and off base, especially without knowing the facts.)

Eric C. Yetter Champs Cup - PDGA A-tier in two weeks. If you like playing skilled golf that tests your execution and your course management, be there and tell your friends.

Using that data, several holes have been improved to add some better scoring spreads (mostly on those holes coming out to 2.4-6 or 3.4-6) and to bump that SSA to right around 70, as close to our par as we can make it.




It would be helpful if Joey or someone else involved would join the Disc Golf Course Designer's group to get access to the analytical tools available for this since it's apparent you really care about doing good design work. I know he's mentioned it but hasn't gotten around to it.

Chuck,

Rex Hay, Joe's right hand man, is a course evaluator who I believe accesses that group, and Nick Kight provided us with all the numbers we needed to make the improvements for this year. Joey isn't big on computers, but he'll take the data and run with it if it's given to him.

The only DGCD members in PA are Shannon Winn (Emmaus), Joe Lynn (Mechanicsburg), Joe Lynn (Haverford), and J Gary (Pittsburgh) with none in DE or NJ. I don't think Nick and Rex have the spreadsheet tools.

I think Alan is referring to Rex Hay's participation in the PDGA Course Evaluation program, while Chuck is referring to the Disc Golf Course Designer's group.

The most popular course is Blueberry Hill with over 50% of the rounds and a 54-57 SSA. That's much tougher than pitch-n-putt. Second, is our pitch-n-putt Woodland Greens at 46 SSA and about 4300 feet. Even this course has three legit par 4s with one being the most popular hole. (Yes, it's the triple tree basket pictured earlier on this thread.) The real pitch-n-putt 9 by the campground is popular due to easy access and it's lighted for daylong play.

The only course with an SSA over 60 is the Gold course. Players have no problem playing the shorter White tees which are cement and still play longer than any other course from the longs except some Granite layouts. And the new secret weapon to encourage players to play the Gold and Granite courses is pictured below. John just got two of these Twister golf carts and they've been a hit. They can only be rented for use on Gold and Granite so I suspect more players will get used to these longer courses with the carts making it a fun and less tiring experience.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/twister%20cart.jpg

BTW, Highbridge has gotten a huge boost in visits this summer with rec players from all over the Midwest with regulars coming from as far away as Ames and Davenport, Iowa. It's not the competitive players that will make or break the operation but the regular rec players that enjoy the fun things to do and the laidback uncrowded atmosphere at Highbridge on some pretty good courses.



If I lived locally I would still play Highbridge Gold the most followed by a finished Bear course, then Blueberry Hill, then Granite Ridge, and Woodland Greens &amp; Chestnut Grove last. Even though Blueberry Hill is the most popular according to your casual round data, I still prefer playing high SSA courses, which may be in stark contrast to the general population that Highbridge gets its "traffic" from.

It's no wonder that Blueberry Hill gets over 50% of the rounds played because even from the shorter tees, the other courses may be "too much golf course" for a lot of casual disc golfers who would play there. Even Blueberry Hill has its tough holes; I can imagine novice and recreational golfers getting very frustrated on the par 5 eighth hole and BH#13-16, and 18.