Is this someone sanctioned by Innova, or another disc golf company? Does this person offer his/her services for a fee?


Designing the course is perhaps the part of this adventure I look forward to the most. As long as I follow safety guidelines and allow for eco-concern, I'm not sure I need a designer.

I'm also in an area where there are some disc golf "big wigs" so I'm sure they can help.

That's also another concern of mine. If once I get the ball rolling on the construction of a course, are the pro's and people closely connected with the disc golf community going to take over the project? Not that I'm opposed to these people helpng me. I don't even want credit for this, I just want another course near me. I guess another question is, will I face any competition or opposition from fellow disc golfers or "highers up" in my journey?


I'm sorry if I'm being vague, I just don't want to name names, for thay are well known.

Just do it yourself if you have permission. It's not that hard to lay out a course. Just remember to make an even amount of right and left handed holes so no one complains and says it favors a righty or lefty.

It's not that hard to lay out a course.



Easy to say for someone from Michigan which doesn't have one member in the 70-member Disc Golf Course Designers group (yet). There are guidelines. It might appear easy to do some courses, especially when no trees and brush need to be removed. It's much more difficult to do it well and do it consistently to address specific skill levels.

One does not need to be a member of the DGCD group in order to design a quality disc golf course. I seem to remember a course in Stillwater Minnesota that was designed by 2 members of the DGCD group, and it was the worst course ever designed.

(Still sour grapes, eh, after all this time?) No problem with the design. But when the city doesn't mow the grass, the best design will fail and baskets might be stolen. Burnsville is another local example. Patapsco is a high profile example. When designers are responsible for mowing grass, like say their private course, then you can complain if it's not maintained.

See you at Tower Ridge/Wakanda. Hope the grass is mowed, or that time of year, the tees might need shoveling.

www.dgbydesign.ck34.net (http://www.dgbydesign.ck34.net)

Set goals
Do you want it to be playable by people of all levels or just another pitch and putt course?
Thenn go and look for holes ...say here and then look at the holes from a pros point of view and a noobs point of view.
The challege is to make it fair yet challenging. then something the pro's would enjoy but yet something where the rec players won't cut down a tree to make the hole easier
...good luck!

I guess the point is, not to believe that just because someone is a member of the DGCD group that you will be ensured a quality course design. Get the opinions of many people and weigh them evenly. The best decisions are made when you look at all of your options, not by just taking someones word for it because they belong to some DGCD group.

Are you seriously saying that your Stillwater design failed because of lack of mowing? You knew about the limited mowing ahead of time, and you didn't take that into consideration with the design that was chosen. Just admit it, that course was poorly designed by DGCD designers.

Don't worry about Tower Ridge & Wakanda, their design quality doesn't depend on if the course in mowed or not ... especially in April.

If you do hire or get assistance from a DGCD member, you at least know that they have experience and access to the resources for doing a contemporary design that will likely account for more elements than one who isn't a member. Until now, there's been no way to evaluate the quality of a design so you don't know what you're getting from someone who isn't a member. It's not that there aren't non-members who might be able to do a decent design, they just haven't joined yet.

The success of the Stillwater course and any course that needs mowing is contingent on whether it will be maintained by the Park Staff. Designers of anything are not responsible for maintenance are they? The architect of your home isn't responsible for taking out your trash or mowing your lawn. The designer is hired to design. This is the very first principle in course design which DGCD members follow and is provided on the PDGA site: http://www.pdga.com/makecrse.php

I was hired with Greg to do the Stillwater design in a time crunch with approval in 3 days and installation 3 days later. We did not know that the project funding was ramrodded thru by an aspiring member of the council without the consent and support of the Park Dept. The Park Dept got the last laugh, if you call it that, by showing the council who was boss by letting the course die with poor maintenance.

If you do hire or get assistance from a DGCD member, you at least know that they have experience and access to the resources for doing a contemporary design that will likely account for more elements than one who isn't a member.

Am I to understand that to become a member, you must already have designed at least one course?

I agree that designers may not be responsible for future course maintenance, however if there is a pre-existing concern like tall grass, and it is know that grass mowing will be limited to certain areas, then you may want to consider designing the course with that in mind. Not taking that into consideration was a mistake. A designer's job is to design a useable course .... not to just design for the sake of designing. I know for you it was just another knotch in your belt. The result was a poorly designed course.

The other problem with that course was that even after 2 years, when it was determined by everyone who went out there, that the course was unplayable ( even for top pros ), I went back to the City Council to propose a course redesign. Their reaction was, "Why should we. We had experts from the PDGA do the initial design. That should be good enough." End of story. That course remains unplayable. Congratulations on the design.

Am I to understand that to become a member, you must already have designed at least one course?



Not a requirement. In fact, we'd rather have potential designers join before designing to get the latest information. Contact me at [email protected] for info.

however if there is a pre-existing concern like tall grass, and it is know that grass mowing will be limited to certain areas,



Unmowed grass is common in most parks being developed that have nothing in them yet. The wetlands area was specifically marked by an environmental engineer hired by the city so the design would avoid areas to be kept natural. And they signed off on the design. The design was specifically located only in areas that could be mowed. We marked the mowing pattern and walked the Park Supervisor thru the layout and he approved it with full knowledge of what was required. The grass was actually mowed while we were installing the course to get it done properly. Whether the supervisor or his boss were behind the lack of mowing as the summer progressed, I don't know. But many times budgets get cut and reducing mowing is a common alternative. The design was never the problem there. It was lack of followthrough, park dept resistance and not enough citizen support. It's not likely the neighbors across the street were backers since the park was convenient as a dog exercise area.

Excuses, excuses, excuses!

The course was never playable. Not even the day after it was installed and "properly mowed".

And just because "they signed off on the design" doesn't mean that it was a good design. The city signed off on the design because they trusted that the design was sound because you and Greg had PDGA representation. Even though the 2 of you didn't consult with anyone else. And if I remember correctly, the MFA was at that time discussing the possibility of forming a "course design committee" so that course design could be reviewed before installation. You were opposed to that.

So, you really want to dredge up the fact that you walked off to sulk when you couldn�t have it redesigned your way after the engineering firm, who was the actual contractor, agreed that the design was the acceptable way to deal with the wetlands boundaries? Several MFA members were there for the installation and satisfied with the design. You didn�t show up to help with the installation, so you wouldn�t know that.

The grass was mowed the day of installation and was playable within a few days. I agree the mowing was never fully done properly despite several trips out there to get the park department to get it right. But no one in the MFA has a flail mower, cared to rent one or would be allowed to mow it. Only local citizens can get any traction with city admin to prod the park dept to mow properly.

For some reason, you feel like I was happy with everything there and it was some great accomplishment, but I was never pleased. I�ve never been afraid to say that the course turned out to be a complete failure, and a complete disappointment. But it was not related to the design effort. You can get upset with me because Greg and I didn�t do more than design it (like I�ve done as a landscape volunteer on twenty or so courses) and you�ve done so. When you get hired, especially as a subcontractor, you do the best you can for what the customer requests. I knew it was trouble from the first time Greg showed me the property and even suggested they not do a course. Even at its best, the part we were allowed to use would only yield an average course without significant tree plantings that would take years to develop.

Greg was the one who formed the MFA design advisory committee which was fine with me as head of the MFA Course Development for 15 years, and he was obviously part of this crunch time process. That group has been tapped regularly and designs have been modified on their advice, especially before tee pads are poured. As is typical in the DG community though, several times players had been invited to check out designs but for some reason several find playing an event more important or find some other excuse. I can also point to projects that were less or not successful where I was not asked to help.

I apologize to those reading this thread who�ve had to wade through this. However, I thought it might be helpful to see the underbelly of the process that many times involves dealing with elements not directly related to design.

To get back to course design...I am dabbeling in design as we speak. I am revamping a hole at our local course (George Ward Park Brimingham AL), basically turning the long position from an easy three and likely 2, into a really good 4 for an advanced player.

I am getting help from a DGCD member. And the fundamental idea that he is inposing on me is, "allow for bad shots" On this hole, most pros should get a three. But a bad drive is not going to add more than one stroke to the players score. And there are a few overhand routes players can take to get out of trouble.

Too many times, when traveling to some of the few but tougher courses I have played, I noticed the holes allowed for no errors. Bowers Park in Tuscaloosa Alabama is an example of this. The student designers at the University of Alabama used a DGCD member to sell the idea to the park department, once it got approved, the students never contacted the DGCD guy again. The course consists of avg 300-350ft holes through woods where the fairways barely get beyond 6 feet wide with heavy rough. Players from Tuscaloosa come to Birmingham to play even though it is a 30 minute drive.

I tried playing it, luckily not losing any discs, but I stopped keeping score after the 7th hole. If I broke 80 I would be lucky. On most courses I can usually shoot 1-2 under par (54).

Make it tough, but make it fair. We have multiple pin placements on our course, some for recreational players, usually an advanced player can shoot 8-9 under in that setup, but we have a tournament setup which breaking par (54) is tough for an advanced player.

Just my two cents.

Not a requirement. In fact, we'd rather have potential designers join before designing to get the latest information. Contact me at [email protected] for info.

Then isn't the assertion that
If you do hire or get assistance from a DGCD member, you at least know that they have experience

an overstatement?

Don't get me wrong: I applaud the idea of course design standards and of peer review of a course layout during the planniing stage. I will grant that a member of the DGDC may be better informed and more knowledgable than Joe Newbie DiscGolfer regarding the principles of good course design and potential pitfalls to avoid, but if membership in the DGDC is open to anyone, regardless of experience, it is simply not the case that any given DGDC member will be more experienced than Joe Newbie DiscGolfer.

It's not that hard to lay out a course.



Easy to say for someone from Michigan which doesn't have one member in the 70-member Disc Golf Course Designers group (yet). There are guidelines. It might appear easy to do some courses, especially when no trees and brush need to be removed. It's much more difficult to do it well and do it consistently to address specific skill levels.



Well I've designed 1 course and am working on my second. How do I become a member of this Disc golf course designers group?

It's the commitment to make sure good design principles are followed, not just experience that can make a difference. A member's experience is identified in the group with levels of Associate, Designer, Sr Designer and Master Designer. Being able to network with the top designers in the sport for help with various issues that arise has been invaluable. Being a member provides additional credibility with city administrators for moving course projects forward.

There are several experienced non-DGCD designers who are not up on contemporary design techniques that would benefit from the design tools and processes they can learn or have access to as members. DGCD members don't have a monopoly on good design ideas. But they do have the tools to shape that creativity into a complete course designed with safety in mind and to serve players of different skill levels.

"I�ve never been afraid to say that the course turned out to be a complete failure, and a complete disappointment. But it was not related to the design effort." - ck34
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's where you are wrong. The design has everything to do with the success of a course.

That's where you are wrong. The design has everything to do with the success of a course.



You are so full of it that it should be laughable by anyone reading this. Are you saying that Token Creek or Plamann would still be successful if they weren't mowed? Patapsco, one of the top courses in the country is going downhill for daily play in the summer because the grass isn't being mowed enough. Burnsville doesn't mow wide enough for summer play. Hundreds of courses would go downhill without mowing. Design has nothing to do with this grass mowing issue unless you're saying the design flaw is that all courses should be in the woods?

You are so full of it that it should be laughable by anyone reading this.



It is. :)

[QUOTE]
Are you saying that Token Creek or Plamann would still be successful if they weren't mowed?



Of course not. The fact that they are mowed supports the design. If those courses were not mowed as well as they are, then I would suggest that the design is flawed. The design must support the ablity to maintain the course. It's about complete planning. The design should support all aspects of the course, not just weather or not you think it's a good shot or not. You'd think an experienced designer would know that.

You are so full of it that it should be laughable by anyone reading this.



It is. :)



And furthermore, check out all that unmowed grass at Axldog Acres (http://fp1.centurytel.net/AxldogAcresDiscGolf/); boy, the design of that course SUCKS! :D

What a bunch of F'n cry babies.
Chuck, Nytrain asked how to become a member and you did not reply. If you are the spokes person I don't think I want to join. Get on with the topic and if you wanna ***** at each other use Private Messenger. :o
I have help design a couple of courses and yes they are and aren't that hard to do. Make it challenging for all skill levels or they won't come back. Make the course flow. By that I mean no long walks between holes, a nice balance of left and right, open and tight holes.
As far as getting big names to help, do your design and then ask for their opinion. An opinion does not mean that they will take over.
Make it user friendly, challenging, no harm to the eco system and you got a winner. If in a public park the more you can get the park and rec people involved the better. Make sure it will be maintained, as in trash pickup and course maintenance.
Good Luck from a Complemented Course Designer in the Texas Hill Country. :DJP

Axl,

I think the point Chuck is trying to make was that they did the best with what they had. And also, it does not matter how well you design a course, if the city does not keep up with the mowing, like in the above mentioned courses, it does not matter what the design is, the course will become unplayable and unpopular.

As well, it does not "matter" if a DGCD member designed a course, I argue there are great designers out there that are not members, but if you are a city official it would be wise to go with a member of a professional design organization that has standards.

To go back to my point on the city keeping up with the course. If you played it, and I know Chuck has, George Ward Park in Birmingham Alabama, is a course designed and installed by the players. To this date the city has not spent a dime on the course. It is only mowed when there is another park function going on, ie softball or family reunions.

Here is the course history http://webpages.charter.net/wrad/Golf/index2.htm
double click on the hyperlink under "DGB History".

The city of Birmingham is not interested in any other disc golf courses being installed, and let a course get so over-run with crime, the pole holes eventually had to be pulled out of the ground due to a high rate of cars being broken into (Cooper Green Park; Brimingham AL). Now the city has allocated funds to install an 8ft wide asphalt walking trail through George Ward Park. Incidentally the trail goes through 14 out of 18 holes on the course. Two current holes will be permanetly lost once construction is under way. The disc golf community, which consists of approximately 300 recreational and tournament players were completely unaware of these plans untill they were finalized. The neighboorhood association who wanted the trail and the city, is letting us use a small area to make up for the lost holes, but it will drastically change the challenge of the current course.

If you get the chance to play George Ward Park, it is definately "the jewel of the south". Standing on the tee box, the holes look real easy, but once you get into trouble you may never come back.

So to everybody who has courses in their city parks, and the parks department likes the courses there, we in Birmingham envy you. For the past 5 years a local DGCD has been trying to convince local cities to install courses only to come up with them saying it is too expensive, or running into neighboorhood associations with a case of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

It is tough trying to promote the greatest underestimated sport in the world.

I did send Nytrain the info and several other people who have contacted me about joining.

Jon makes several good points. No need to hire a DGCD member if you have some capabilities. But their advice can be helpful and perhaps help shape the course so it's consistent with current design guidelines such as these developed by DGCD and adopted by the PDGA: http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf

I've only been the sole designer on a minority of projects but have been asked to assist or consult on many more: http://www.dgbydesign.ck34.net/resume.htm
I'm sure that several of our DGCD members have assisted on more courses than they've done themselves.

That's right. If I don't get the fairways & greens mowed, my course sucks. I have to support my design by maintaining the course. If I wasn't prepared to keep up with the extensive mowing, then I'd have to redesign many of the holes. I'd be a fool to think that placing a basket in the middle of a field with 4 foot high grass would be good design without mowing a decent fairway & green. If it is determined that the fairway isn't wide enough, or the green is too small ... I take steps to correct it. My course is very playable, even with the "grass-traps".

I'm sorry if I turned this into a Chuck bashing. However, I am annoyed that he is claims to be the spokes person for good disc golf course design. In my opinion, his courses are average at best.

I'm not saying that you should not contact the DGCD group before designing and installing a new course. However, I caution everyone from being duped that just because someone belongs to the DGCD group, that you will be guaranteed a quality design. Good intentions don't always provide the best design.

Oh yeah, The Steelers are gonna lose! :D

Steve,

Your whole contention is that Chuck was told beforehand that the course would not be mowed and that he should alter his design accordingly. Did you even read when he wrote:


Unmowed grass is common in most parks being developed that have nothing in them yet. The wetlands area was specifically marked by an environmental engineer hired by the city so the design would avoid areas to be kept natural. And they signed off on the design. The design was specifically located only in areas that could be mowed. We marked the mowing pattern and walked the Park Supervisor thru the layout and he approved it with full knowledge of what was required. The grass was actually mowed while we were installing the course to get it done properly. Whether the supervisor or his boss were behind the lack of mowing as the summer progressed, I don't know. But many times budgets get cut and reducing mowing is a common alternative. The design was never the problem there. It was lack of followthrough, park dept resistance and not enough citizen support.

Guidlines should be helpful and a DGCD member on your team would not hurt, especially if it is a public park.
My home course, The Lago Vista Resort, is on several properties and is exclusively maintained by the local club and volunteers. Without extended efforts the course would go by the way side. Thanks for all the help from our club members and Round Rock to make it a favorite of many central Texas disc golfers. :DJP

www.NorthShoreDiscGolf.com (http://www.NorthShoreDiscGolf.com)

It's the commitment to make sure good design principles are followed, not just experience that can make a difference. A member's experience is identified in the group with levels of Associate, Designer, Sr Designer and Master Designer. Being able to network with the top designers in the sport for help with various issues that arise has been invaluable. Being a member provides additional credibility with city administrators for moving course projects forward.

I don't dispute any of that. What I do dispute is your initial claim that one benefit of hiring or consulting a DGCD member is that they have experience designing courses.

What I do dispute is your initial claim that one benefit of hiring or consulting a DGCD member is that they have experience designing courses.



You win. Now what? Those members hanging out a shingle that they design courses do have experience. Those who have joined while on their first course or are just interested in the design area usually don't profess themselves as experienced. For a new course project, it's good to have both experience and the resources of a DGCD member, and they might not both be the same person in some areas. However, the experienced non-member should have some independent validation of their capabilities.

Is John Houck a member of the DGCD?

I've heard he's designed a few good courses. Like these three little, pitch-and-putts in San Saba...

Is John Houck a member of the DGCD?




John is our fifth member. Other members from Texas are Dave Draz, Kevin Morrow and Andi Lehmann (our only woman member).

I've only been the sole designer on a minority of projects but have been asked to assist or consult on many more: http://www.dgbydesign.ck34.net/resume.htm
I'm sure that several of our DGCD members have assisted on more courses than they've done themselves.



I've played some of those courses and I've been impressed with them all.

I also didn't know that Hyland Ski area had a disc golf course there. I might have to check that one out once the snow melts.

Hyland isn't in the ground yet but the design is about 2/3 nailed down. Timmy Gill and a few others are assisting with this project. We'll test the layout again in the spring. The grant that's paying for it has to be spent by June 30th so it's pretty guaranteed to be completed by then, including cement tee pads.

ive found the best course designs and best layouts were ones that were revisited constantly over a period of time.....sometimes taking years to get it right, no matter who designed it initially......some issues being arbitrary land management by the land owner, or perhaps land loss or addition to the course.
utilizing whatever resources to initially design your course is optimal, such as chuck, or another experienced disc golf course designer, but if you care about your course, constantly questioning the integrity and ability of the course to provide a great experience is paramount.
in other words, once its in the ground, dont think your work is done. :eek:

You win.

:)


However, the experienced non-member should have some independent validation of their capabilities.

Why? The experience non-member's course(s) are there to be played. Res ipsa loquitur

If a Park Dept doesn't understand disc golf then they have no way to assess a designer's skill or capabilities by viewing another course in town. That's why the credibility of a DGCD member as part of the design team can make a difference, even if that person is less experienced than the non-members on the team.

I think the new PDGA course evaluation process being introduced this year will help in this area so non-member design skills can be recognized. The Design score is one of the three main areas in the evaluation. Designers won't be encouraged to do the official evaluation on their own courses so we will hopefully get some objective feedback.

On this hole, most pros should get a three. But a bad drive is not going to add more than one stroke to the players score...



Parkntwoputt, that first sentence always raises a big red flag for me. If any hole is pretty much an automatic three for any one division, it's not going to be much fun. Ideally, you want to keep the hole fair (meaning it requires skill, not luck) and that pros don't get the same score more than 2/3 of the time.

The fact that a bad drive only costs you a stroke is beautiful.

Just some stuff I learned in my DGCD handbook. Good luck with your course.

Mr. Houck sir,
I have enjoyed reading your articles in DGWN about "Dumb Holes" & "Smart Holes". You have allot of good insight about course design. Keep those articles coming!

Axldog and anyone else who enjoys Houck's articles or is diving into designing courses/holes. Try this link out http://circularproductions.com/article_list.phtml

I truly beleive that is the first place a person even thinking about designing a course should go. Enjoy!

John,

You should be relieved to know that Tom Monroe is helping me design the hole.

The trick to this placement is landing your drive (~300ft turnover) in front of the "tunnel". The tunnel is basically a 20ft wide hole carved through thick brush. To the left and right of the tunnel is an overhand route for people if they miss the opening. The tunnel is ~40ft long before it opens into another landing zone, (a 30ft circle of large trees, which has been cleared out). At the back of the second landing zone the player will have to shoot through one of two other openings in the brush to get to the green, another 30ft circle of large trees, which also is a downward slope.

You cannot throw a roller to the pin, there is a downed tree trunk across the tunnel.

It is possible to make it to the pin in two shots, if the drive landed at the opening of the tunnel, and your upshot made it the 90ft though the tunnel and second opening to where the pin was. When I said most pros, I was insinuating a person with a 1000+ player rating, which obviously is not most pros.

Tom and I are designing it, because our back nine needed a tough hole, it is called "birdie land" by the locals, so we aim to change that.

Scott,
Those are all excellent articles. I've read them all before in DGWN, however it's nice to see them organized together. I just read them all again, and I have to say that Mr. Houck is right on. It's very encouraging that Mr. Houck chooses to share his wisdom on disc golf course design philosophies. As opposed to just posting a resume on all the courses he has designed to try to validate his design expertise with the assupmtion that quantity equals quality. :D

Maybe it just takes less bandwidth to post his articles than it does to list his accomplishments. :cool:

So, is fighting on the web a valuable quality in course design? Because I can start some crap if I need to.


Seriously, if anyone else has some advice or articles that perhaps I haven't read, lay it on me.

So, is fighting on the web a valuable quality in course design? Because I can start some crap if I need to.



No it's not. Sorry.

Darn, and I had such an excellent response, but I've gotten it out of my system and it doesn't advance the design discussion. (But notice who has the promotional link in their signature line)

Here are some helpful links if you haven't checked these out:
http://www.pdga.com/cd_start.php
http://www.discgolfassoc.com/coursedesign.html
http://www.disclife.com/propdoor.shtml
http://www.innovadiscs.com/coursedesign/course5.htm
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cyberstork/ADAResources.htm

This one isn�t specifically on design but if you�d like to see a �before� video of our new National Disc Golf Center being designed in Augusta, here it is if you have a fast connection. As you might expect, the �quality� isn�t there once the file was crunched down so it could be piped over the net.
http://www.pdga.com/video/NDGCPreviewTour.wmv

(But notice who has the promotional link in their signature line)






And what's wrong with that?

Click on the Rules link for this Discussion Board. It contains the phrase: "Commercial posts are not allowed and will be removed" which is not an uncommon policy for discussion boards. Of course, it also says this Board is not monitored. Considering the many product discussion threads, obviously posters allow a fair amount of latitude on this, including one time promos. But companies do have the option to pay for a commercial link on the PDGA Home page.

Rules are meant to be broken. What about people with brand names on their avatars? Are they breaking a rule too? Or people with a brand name in their screen name?
And the Ebay thread - that is nothing but links to peoples auctions, it seems like that whole thread would be against the rules. Yes I know they say it is not monitered, but I know it is.I've seen entire threads get erased. I just don't think they care too much about a link to your private course or shops site.
No harm intended, just getting my name out there.

When I said most pros, I was insinuating a person with a 1000+ player rating, which obviously is not most pros.





A big difference indeed. But you still don't want the hole to be an "automatic" three for anybody. Even Ken and Barry should step up to the tee knowing they'll have to execute two good shots. Of course that's sometimes easier said than done, especially in the woods.

As a general rule of thumb, if a player makes a good drive and gets rewarded with a 90' approach, that's not much of a reward. 90' is too long to be a real putt attempt, and it's too short to be challenging. Nobody wants a "gimme" upshot -- it's no fun, and it's not golf.

But it sounds like your approach is still challenging.

Tom's been around longer than just about anyone. I'm sure he's giving you plenty of good advice.

Maybe it just takes less bandwidth to post his articles than it does to list his accomplishments. :cool:



Golly, Gary... now you're making me blush.

John,

I talked to Tom Monroe today while working on our new hole, and about what you had told me about the design. He said the best way to visualize our design was to "remember New York" he said you would remember and understand.

I assume he's referring to New York City. I actually wrote extensively about it in the most recent DGWN.

It was 827' feet -- no easy layups there, unless you had two unbelievable shots, as I think Mike Randolph did in the final. And his "layup" went in, only the third eagle three on that hole that week.

NYC was an all timer. In the permanent pantheon of greatest holes ever! That whole course was OTH!

I wish we could have played it every day at those 2 worlds, just like I wish we could play just Nockmixon everyday in 2006!

John, do you agree with me that one of the hardest things to accomplish in disc golf course designs is a true WCP par 5 that can be eagled (3ed)? I always have my eye out for those holes. I think we have about 5 of them here in the NE.

Nick and John,
Do you mind if I chime in here?
Ok.
As with most par 5's in ball golf the decision to go for eagle is usually made off the tee.
Most well designed golf courses have strategically placed bunkers or water on the par 5's that can be eagled.
Either your gonna rip your driver past them or smooth a 3 wood/low iron before them.
There are always the par 5 holes with a creek or a lake before the green where the decision is made on the 2nd shot.
Here is a link to a par 5 at Ozark mountain.
This is one of 4 par 5's and the only one that has been eagled. http://www.gdstour.com/ozarks/hole8.html
Most experinced ball golfers will tell you that par 5's are meant to be birdied and a par is like a bogey. if you go for eagle and get the bogey your most likely gonna lose 2 to the field.

dave, although i've never played the ozarks course it appears to be one of the finest courses i've ever seen. any idea when or if it will be available to play?

David,
Do you consider course management as critical design criteria when designing a hole? Especially when it comes to a par 5 design? Or not really?

sure, course maintenance and upkeep is critical. When we finished getting the baskets in at Kewaunee, the ski hill had not been cut. The grass was over your head in some places. "No problem, I can stick that disc under the basket", yeah right! AND amateur locals cannot do that. I played a round with our club right away and we lost MANY discs. The next day the county came out and mowed the hills, and the course has (and will continue to be) a success.

Off the normal flow of this thread, but one thing I hate about the course design criteria is the 30 foot area around the basket free of obstacles! What a joke! In ball golf is the green flat? No, there are slopes, so in disc golf I say the basket needs some obstacles near it. As long as there is a line from the tee for an ace, all is good. If you are worried about green obstacles, you must control and place your drive in a better location. I did this with Kewaunee and already had a few complaints. I think it is because one basket was ridiculous, so I moved it, but I will not place the baskets in the middle of an open area in all cases, and I will accept the criticism for doing so. Like I said, green obstacles are fine if there is an ace line and a good placement area that would still allow deuce. Make the players play and use their skills (including holding back for a deuce placement), not just boast about their low score!

Otherwise general design...
- refrain from crossover holes
- keep tees and baskets far enough away from each other
- seek balanced right, left, open, and tight holes
- and most of all UTILIZE THE TERRAIN WITH A LOGICAL FLOW

but one thing I hate about the course design criteria is the 30 foot area around the basket free of obstacles



Sounds like another rule that's not a rule. Here's what it says in the guidelines:

"There should not be too many obstructions within 30 ft (10m) of each target. An obstruction should not be so imposing that a player can't at least try to putt by stretching sideways, throwing from a low stance or throwing over the top of or through any obstacles near a target."

Some designers like Carlton Howard have lobbied for virtually no obstacles in the 10m circle. In NC, most course have lots of trees and his concern is that designers will use trees as backstops to prevent bad upshots from flying by the basket.

But most designers are fine with obstacles and slopes as long as the second sentence in the quote above is followed. In other words, there should be no place within the 10m circle where there's NO air route to the basket. As long as the player can throw over or around a bush, even if they have to stretch far left or right or get on their knees, it's OK. No designer guarantees you'll be able to take your normal stance, but there should be some air route to the basket, even if it takes an unusual stance and/or grip to pull it off.

but one thing I hate about the course design criteria is the 30 foot area around the basket free of obstacles



Many times this guideline is blatantly ignored, but with good reason.

If you've got a fairly wide open 225 foot par three hole with no slope to the green or severe dropoff or OB hazard near it, some interesting obstacles on the green might make this hole more challenging and a lot more interesting.

On the other hand, if you've got a 625-foot par four hole with a 90 degree dogleg, obstacles on the green are inappropriate. The challenge of the hole is most likely executing the drive with a long but accurate placement shot, and making a long approach shot to the polehole to be able to bang in a birdie three putt. Having a challenging green with obstacles on this hole may add a half-stoke par and result in an awkward grey-area hole that average too high for a par four but would play as a very easy par five.

This concept is a direct correlation from ball golf. Many of the best golf courses in the world will feature flat greens on the longer and harder holes and challenging greens on the holes that easier to play. A great example is the Royal Troon course, site of last year's British Open. The front nine play downwind and without many gorse bushes to line the fairways. The greens on this outward nine are made intentionally difficult in order give these holes some teeth. The "Postage Stamp," the par three eighth hole, is only 123 yards long but features a green that is only 30 yards deep and 10 yards wide, with crater-like bunkers surrounding the green.

In contrast, the back nine play directly into the wind, so any errant shot is exaggerated, and there are gorse bushes lining some of the fairways. Those are like shrubs full of tiny thorns, which essentially serves as a one-shot penalty. These inward nine holes play significantly longer, and so most of these greens are larger and flatter, and so designed to play relatively easier.

I agree with the underlying notion of the last post, being that the average deviation from "par" should be more consistent throughout a course. As it is there are too many holes that are "should" 2's or 3's that are considered par 3's. The first type averages less than 2.5 for pros and is almost never bogeyed. The second type averages a bit over 3 and is rarely birdied.

All good golf holes afford pro players the chance to earn a birdie and have enough danger that bogeys or worse are earned as well.

I disagree with the substance of
"On the other hand, if you've got a 625-foot par four hole with a 90 degree dogleg, obstacles on the green are inappropriate. The challenge of the hole is most likely executing the drive with a long but accurate placement shot, and making a long approach shot to the polehole to be able to bang in a birdie three putt. Having a challenging green with obstacles on this hole may add a half-stoke par and result in an awkward grey-area hole that average too high for a par four but would play as a very easy par five."

Good ball golf holes have challenges on all shots. Just because a par four requires a good drive to set up an opportunity to earn a birdie does not mean that the second shot or putt should be free of danger. Pro ball golfers do three putt, and not simply because of bad putting.

As far as hazards within 30 ft. of baskets. I do agree that OB lines shouldn't be that close, but for a different reason. I don't like holes where the "risk" of OB is that you'll have a 12 ft. come-backer for par after running a basket and going OB. I like to see people sweat a 35 footer coming back after going OB.

Peace.

Darn, and I had such an excellent response, but I've gotten it out of my system and it doesn't advance the design discussion. (But notice who has the promotional link in their signature line)

Here are some helpful links if you haven't checked these out:
http://www.pdga.com/cd_start.php
http://www.discgolfassoc.com/coursedesign.html
http://www.disclife.com/propdoor.shtml
http://www.innovadiscs.com/coursedesign/course5.htm
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cyberstork/ADAResources.htm

This one isn�t specifically on design but if you�d like to see a �before� video of our new National Disc Golf Center being designed in Augusta, here it is if you have a fast connection. As you might expect, the �quality� isn�t there once the file was crunched down so it could be piped over the net.
http://www.pdga.com/video/NDGCPreviewTour.wmv



Great links Chuck ... I have them all saved now.
I have a question about the NDGC preview ... at one point you mention the possibility of using the same green area for two different holes. I can only assume both holes wouldn't use the same green during the same round. I have often wondered if any courses use the same green area for different holes ... has this been done on a Championship level course before? I have done this on home object courses so I could use a great green area coming from two different directions.

Using the same pin placement for two different holes should only be done when each hole also has another pin placement, at least on a public and/or championship course. Home courses can certainly do more sharing based on space limitations. At the NDGC, it's become a moot point since that area of the course has been redesigned since I did that preview video so there currently aren't any shared placements. At Highbridge, there are two sets of holes that have shared placements but each hole involved has one or two other placements also.

Thanks Chuck ... that's pretty much what I was thinking.

BTW - possibly will be in GA this spring. Do you know the status of the NDGC courses and what will be playable to the public in March/April?

Other than several practice baskets, there will not be any playable course for a while at NDGC. I think Brian Graham is hopeful the Corp of Engineers will get underway with their clearing process this spring so we can follow them and start clearing the fairways for the North course. It's not unrealistic to think a course might be playable later in the year but that's on the optimistic side.

In a strange coincidence, Brian Graham just posted an NDGC update on the Other PDGA topics thread:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=301934&Main=26934#Post301904

I don't mind waiting an additional year to experience what sounds/looks like a wonderful setting for Disc Golf :D:D

what is the best location , in conjunction with the tee box, for the tee-signs to be located? also , what is the recommended height for tee signs.we have a course that has some tee signs right at the end of the box and are planning on relocating them!! recomendations please!! ihave seen so many people almost smack their hands!!

Usually about 5 feet to the left side of the tee pad and about 3-5 feet back from the front edge. The left side isn't critical. In some cases with DGA signs, I would put it on the side where the front of the sign was visible when walking from the previous hole.

I'm always surprised at how many tee signs are in the way of possible hand-smackage. I'm a big proponant of having no 'hand-smack' obstacles around the tee. I guess some designers like to add challenge to the hole this way, but I feel like the tee shot should be a comfortable shot ... just my $.02

Chuck
How does one become of member of the Course Designers Group. I have designed (and/or helped design) many in the Northern Michigan region. Boyne Mt., Hickory Hills, River Road and more...
Pluister

Danny. Hand smackage is a problem. Maybe this comittee that Chuck speaks of has written guidelines, I'd like to read them. Definitely should have a hand smack guideline in the book.

One guideline I'd like to suggest...no trees in front of the tee pad in the middle of the fairway. I know some courses where some genius thought the players would be "challanged" to have to avoid a tree right in front of the tee pad.

Yeah, challanged. Mentally challanged. Like a retard is challanged. Dumb!!!!

Frisbee,

Come play one of the MILLION! pitch and putt courses here in Alabama, and you will see that the only way to make a course difficult, is to not have fairways. I think the average (rough guestimate) length on the 4 longest courses in Alabama, 18 holes, is 5700ft those would include
UAH - Huntsville
Redston - Huntsville
George Ward - Birmingham
USA - Mobile

These are courses, where if you are not under par 54, you are dissapointed, even a MA2 player can shoot under par on these courses.