It's been my observation, but not scientific research, that top Gold level players (super pros) don't necessarily like courses designed to challenge their skills even though they may respect courses like Renny Gold and Winthrop Gold for tournament play. I believe it's because they are used to destroying and have fun torching the design parameters of typical public courses with hole lengths from the long tees that are more suited for Blue (975>) level players. I don't blame them but I think it's interesting from a designer's standpoint.

Gold level players average about 0.3 better per hole than Blue level players with the top Gold guys doing even better. If a hole averages 3.0 for Blue level, the Gold player will average better than 2.7 meaning they will get a birdie at least one out of three times to steadily surge ahead of the Blue player. Even better, good holes that average 2.7 for the Blue player will fall into the dreaded Par 2 zone for Gold players with an average under 2.4 on those holes. That can be fun, not only for Gold players, but all players.

I'm in the process of developing a new public course that is mostly open, so length is the primary element that's available to produce scoring spread. A local Gold level player prefers some 400 ft holes (Houck's dumb hole length range for Blue level), that only a handful of players in the state might birdie, versus setting these holes in the 475-525 range (the space is available) which would make these holes more challenging for most players except the super pros to strive for 3s.

He claims that rec players love open holes in the 375-425 range. He's partly right because there are more White level (900) rec players than Blue level, especially non-PDGA players. For them, a hole in that range is a challenge to get a 3 like the 480 footer is for Blue level. So, do you follow the ball golf design approach and design consistently for one skill level from each set of tees? Or, not worry about it and just throw down the pins and tees and not worry too much about hole lengths and scoring spread? Remember, there's nothing but elevation to deal with (which has been accounted for in the effective lengthsfor this discussion), very little foliage and no OB hazards. There will also be a shorter set of tees on this course.

I am not a gold player, so my opinion may not count for much.

I like holes that challenge every throw. Not all of those throws need to be big crushes off the tee, and with an open park, you have little else for challenge. The targets should be set where the long approach is as demanding as possible.

I would just throw down pads and baskets at a variety of lengths. For this type of course I would do that and only put in one set of pads. IMO, this will maximize the fun factor for a course that sounds otherwise pretty unattractive. Here is my reasoning:

My problem with open courses that offer no real length variety is that you eliminate the upside for fun for a large portion of the playing population. In my case, I hate courses that are relatively open and all the holes are 380-500'. I throw 300-320' consistently and can sometimes get up to 360'. I think that the majority of Adv players are in this category. 380-500' holes offer 80-200' upshots...and I feel horrible if I don't get within 25' of the pin on those approach shots. So the drive is boring and there is no upside other than the occasional upshot that accidentally goes in. All there is is the downside of bad upshots since bad drives go unpunished. I would rather go to the local highshool practice football field and throw to my little heart's content.

But this same course could be really fun for the big arm, or to shorter arms where a score of 4 would be rewarding.

I'm sure you are well aware of this kind of thinking, but hopefully this affirms things in some way or another.

Are looking for answers to this question from top Gold level players? (super pros) There aren't many that regularly frequent the message board.

PS: this might be a real neat place to experiment with directional targets. That would force you to really have to place your upshot well and consider risk-reward on challenging putts.

Oh...and one other PS: I thought of what I think would be a cool way to do "sand traps" for disc golf on long and open 2-shot holes. If you can lace the fairway with 1' diameter rocks for a swath of say 50-60' at the length where a majority would want to land, you could make an area where run-ups would be impossible.

Having to throw flat-footed would be equivalent to having to pull out a sand wedge or high numbered iron with say 200 yards to the green in ball golf.

I didn't want this to taint the dialog but the site is a beautiful ski hill. So even though most of the holes are in the open, the elevation changes will make this a fun course. The several holes where the lengths were in question are cross hill and esentially level.

Great question Chuck. I'm facing a similar situation in central Ohio. We figure 6-8 holes could bring the woods in to play & the rest will be open, open, open.

This is an old farm that the city wants to turn into a park. Disc Golf will be one of the first things in there, so we pretty much have our pick of the 475 acre plot. The money they have set aside is more than ample. The original thought was two pins & two tees for each hole, but after walking the land for many hours, that kinda seems like overkill. After we left the last time I started thinking that big boomer & open 2 shot holes sounded boring. I think mp3 said it well.

You can't put a gold level course on white level land.

Now we're thinking about alternate tees & pins only where it will require an alternate shot to get there. Then using the left over money to plant trees & provide great amenities.

Oh...and one other PS: I thought of what I think would be a cool way to do "sand traps" for disc golf on long and open 2-shot holes. If you can lace the fairway with 1' diameter rocks for a swath of say 50-60' at the length where a majority would want to land, you could make an area where run-ups would be impossible.
.



Fascinating. I'm going to have to give that one some thought.

Chuck, why are you so concerned about Gold players on this course? They're probably not going to be very interested in a course with no trees.

As Dave Dunipace likes to point out, weaker pros may not be able to reach an open 400' hole in the air, but they can reach it with a roller. And they only need to be accurate at 370' to get a putt. As for appropriate length on two-shot holes, I would think an open hole probably needs to be at least 575'-625' for Blue players.

And as for what people enjoy, I've always suspected that people liked open holes at the max distance they can realistically throw -- that way you need to make a really good shot (for you) to park the hole. But that's just a theory.

There's an ad hoc committee of a handful of Gold level players here who question why some holes shouldn't be done for them. I'm sure they would prefer I put some holes where only they can reach them rather than put them far enough for good Blue level 2-shot throws. And frankly, that length makes for an easy second shot for them but not a deuce opp so it's not fun for them. But as we discussed before, you shouldn't be designing public holes/courses for just a handful of players in the state.

In general, we have rich terrain options in MN so these concerns don't come up often. With more trees and in the woods, length is usually less critical and starkly defines skill levels.

Check the chart for Blue level. Good Blue level 2-shot distance is from 475-575 in the wide open.

What's all this red white and blue and gold stuff? When did it pop up? It sounds like when you're a kid and they give you colored stars on your homework. Or like merrit badges or something. Black belt karate and purple hearts and green berets and blue cub scouts and green webelos and brownies and NYPD Blue.

Let's stick to ratings. You have 980 players and 880 players and 1030 players. Good enough.

Check the chart for Blue level. Good Blue level 2-shot distance is from 475-575 in the wide open.



Then I suggest that we should revisit the chart. Since we made it, disc technology has improved, and we have the good driving data that you got in Houston.

The truth is that I rarely make even semi-open two-shot fairways shorter than 590'. Based on your data, the shortest Blue players drive 300'. I figure that if you can make two good accurate 300' shots, you should get a putt. And if that's as far as you can throw, you had better be extremely accurate (if you expect to compete as a pro).

I also believe in having one or two holes in the 375'-400' range on every course, space permitting. The guys who can throw that far deserve to be able to make up a stroke on the field. But they should have to be accurate to get it. The shorter throwers can throw a roller or make a long putt to get their birdie on those holes.

I'm sure some readers are thinking, "375'? 400'? All pros can throw that far." Well, the truth, my friends, is that a lot of people who claim to be able to throw 400' or 450' consistently are slightly mistaken. I'm not naming names...

What's all this red white and blue and gold stuff? When did it pop up? It sounds like when you're a kid and they give you colored stars on your homework. Or like merrit badges or something. Black belt karate and purple hearts and green berets and blue cub scouts and green webelos and brownies and NYPD Blue.

Let's stick to ratings. You have 980 players and 880 players and 1030 players. Good enough.



Anne, you make a good point. But sometimes colors can be more fun than numbers. And you are kind of cute -- do you have an older sister?

Anyway, shouldn't you be out calling church groups? I did send you an e-mail this evening.

The driving data was what helped create the guidelines. Subsequent data has continued to confirm its accuracy and advancing disc technology hasn't changed it at this point based on the scores. A 600 ft open hole is OK for Gold but not Blue level if you want to get scoring spread. As long as there's moderate risk/reward with average to slightly less foliage, then 375-400 is fine for Blue level.

.Yeah I'll start calling curch groups now at 10:30 PM

The driving data was what helped create the guidelines. Subsequent data has continued to confirm its accuracy and advancing disc technology hasn't changed it at this point based on the scores. A 600 ft open hole is OK for Gold but not Blue level if you want to get scoring spread.



I didn't come here looking for an argument, but I find that very hard to believe. What data do you have? Where is all Rodney's score data from Iowa?


As long as there's moderate risk/reward with average to slightly less foliage, then 375-400 is fine for Blue level.



I can't imagine that that can be right. I have all the scorecards from World Doubles this year, but most doubles scores are hard to work with. I can tell you this:

* Hole 8 on the Hill at Wimberley is 615'. It's fairly tight off the tee and slightly downhill. There are trees to whack the whole way, and it takes a really good drive to miss all the trees and avoid the pond. Going over the top is tough.

It's almost impossible to have a straight approach at the pin, and there are several small trees within 50'. So it plays A LOT tougher than an open 615' hole.

In Alternating Shot (essentially singles for our purposes), the top 12 teams produced six 3's, four 4's, a 5, and a circle 7. The threes came from Hammock/Climo, Landers/Burpee, Reading/Reading, Rendon/Siuda, Cunningham/Smith, and Grider/Bethman. There are a few Gold players in there, but not the majority. If a wide-open 600' hole is too long to get a spread of scores from Blue to Gold players, you certainly wouldn't expect to get a spread from a 615' moderately open hole.

* Then on hole #9, which is 365' and dead flat with nothing in the way (you will get in trouble if you go 30'-40' right, left, or deep), there were four 2's and eight 3's. The point being the even top pros don't have great accuracy at 365'. My memory is that it wasn't very windy, but I'll check on that.

* Meanwhile, out in San Saba, the Advanced guys played Best Disc (aka Best Score) on Strawbale #1. (For reference, there is a diagram and discussion of this hole in a recent DGWN). I would call this hole moderately open to moderately tight. It's 582' from the Blue tee. The top 12 teams produced six 3's and six 4's.

My calculations show that if they're getting a birdie (3) 50% of the time in Best Disc, they should be getting 3's about 30% of the time in regular singles. So it's a tough hole for them, but it will generate an acceptable spread of scores. Now these guys are not 975 players -- going into the tournament there were two below 900, three between 901 and 930, eleven between 931 and 940, five in the 940's, one at 951, one at 972, and one unrated.

(By the way, that was a very windy weekend, but I think it was pretty calm for the third round, which is where those scores comes from.)

So...if a 400' semi-open hole is a good two-shot hole for 975 players, this semi-tight 582' hole should be ridiculous for players 950 and below. But it's not at all.

And that's what your intuition would tell you. The overwheleming majority of Blue players can throw at least 300-350'. That would leave them with an upshot under 100', which they should never miss. In fact, I would consider any hole that leaves most players with an open (or even less than average) approach under 100' to be dumb on its face.

Am I missing something? If not, I guess I need to apologize for signing off on those guidelines. I must have been daydreaming about Anne's sister. Let's fix 'em.

OK, one more quick bonus stat.

Meandering Greenbelt #11, in Best Shot, in high winds. Pretty darn open. You need to shank your drive pretty bad to get in trouble. Same with your approach. It's 592' from the Bues and dead flat. In the wind, it should have been brutal for our 950 and below competitors.

But they tore it up. Those same twelve teams above shot eight 3's and four 4's.

OK, maybe it was a strong downwind. Then hole #7 would have been 635' INTO a stiff headwindwind, with two very large trees to contend with on the approach. OB all along the right side. Should be darn near impossible for our heroes. But there were four 3's and eight 4's.

It seems clear to me that they would score very well on an open 600' hole with no wind. And again, that's what my intuition would tell me.

A 400' hole with average foliage shows up as 3.3-3.4 scoring average for Blue level players. That indicates a good scoring spread with 6-7 threes and 3-4 fours. Obviously, those blue players are not able to throw 300-350 when there's average foliage and some of their second throws may be from challenging positions.

I checked some data from Highbridge for something close. Hole 5 on Blueberry is 380', uphill 12 feet with slightly more than average foliage and some trouble off the fairway but no OB (you have the DVD). The effective length is 416 and the forecaster said the scoring average would be 3.58 for blue. The scores came out at 3.56 for a pool of 21 players who averaged the 950 blue rating.

I have many other examples and the forecaster is nailing the numbers when tested in the field, even with the new plastic. We'll have even more info this summer with larger fields of similarly rated players. There'll be lots of numbers to chew on next winter when you're watching the Vikes from your outpost in Buffalo.

It's 592' from the Bues and dead flat. In the wind, it should have been brutal for our 950 and below competitors. But they tore it up. Those same twelve teams above shot eight 3's and four 4's.




The forecaster says the individuals would average 3.6 on this hole. In doubles you'd expect 3.3 and I believe that's what you got. (FYI: Blue ranges from 974-925 averaging 950).

For the opposite direction, forecaster says about 4.0 for individuals with doubles coming in around 3.6-3.7 which is what you got again.

Doubles data is a little dicey to use for this but it seems like we're close here.

A 400' hole with average foliage shows up as 3.3-3.4 scoring average for Blue level players. That indicates a good scoring spread with 6-7 threes and 3-4 fours. Obviously, those blue players are not able to throw 300-350 when there's average foliage and some of their second throws may be from challenging positions.



Fascinating. Maybe I'm using a bad definition of "average." I'm on my way out this morning and don't have time to look for it. Where is it? Or just: what is it?


I have many other examples and the forecaster is nailing the numbers when tested in the field, even with the new plastic. We'll have even more info this summer with larger fields of similarly rated players. There'll be lots of numbers to chew on next winter when you're watching the Vikes from your outpost in Buffalo.



OK, your football forecaster definitely needs to be fixed.

The good news is that it looks like I'll get to see Highbridge myself soon enough... as a marshal. Get all your effective 416' holes ready. I'm going to three them all... with my putter.

http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/scoreavgchart.jpg

Harder is better, my personal opinion is that I wish every course was a par 64. With that said, the harder the course is the more casual players and am level golfers will stay away. I wish we could start making par 60's to 64 here in tuls because we have enough par 36's in town

This thread is too wide. Who screwed it up. :p

Kevin, I always thought the same thing until Olse and Co.
designed a par 60somethingish at Circle C in Austin.
Apparently, it is all the rage. Even the hackers like it.
Long waits just to tee off. I still think that casuals
generally like pitchnputt, but apparently, they can be
atttracted to difficult courses also.

"It's been my observation, but not scientific research, that top Gold level players (super pros) don't necessarily like courses designed to challenge their skills even though they may respect courses like Renny Gold and Winthrop Gold for tournament play."

Chuck you are way off on this one. I don't know who you talked to but every superpro i have ever talked about course design prefers longer & more challenging courses. BUT, as was said upthread, VARIETY is the most important aspect of any course design. short, long, left, right, tight, open,S curves, MIX IT UP!!! golf is not meant to be all par 3's or all 500 foot holes. That's what SuperPros like.

Don't make the mistake of designing a course like Snowbowl where every hole plays about 380. LaGrassa really showed how little he knows about course design lauding that course in the new DGWN. To take a mountain as sweet as Snowbowl and end up with no 2-shot holes is about as boneheaded as it gets.

So please, mix up your distances on this new course. a couple under 250, a few around 300, a couple 400 and a couple 500 or 600 or 7 or 8.

Don't make the mistake of designing a course like Snowbowl where every hole plays about 380. LaGrassa really showed how little he knows about course design lauding that course in the new DGWN. To take a mountain as sweet as Snowbowl and end up with no 2-shot holes is about as boneheaded as it gets.



I lauded the Snowbowl course for THE VIEWS. You could almost see the Grand Canyon from up there. But I guess you weren't admiring the view while you were busy looking for your disc in the woods, eh, douchebag?

Ginnelly wanted the design for Snowbowl to be more experiential than Gold level competitive. I had several 2-shot holes worked into the design when I was out there on behalf of the PDGA to assist with setting layouts for Pro Worlds. I was disappointed from a designer's standpoint with the results. On the other hand, I'm inclined to think Dan made the right call. With the abnormal challenge of the high altitude, players of all levels were physically tested more than perhaps is even appropriate for a Worlds competition. Making the course more difficult would have meant longer rounds and time on the hill by using the less efficient stagger start format than shotgun, and the weather issues may have become unresolvable. Players got the view and throw on hole 18 along with other scenic views for that design, which I believe most attendees felt enhanced their experience at Flagstaff.

If that design was done on a course at much lower altitude, I think I and several others may have squawked a little more that it was not challenging enough for world class play. The course for the Ams this year will be set at a little lower altitude but not enough to change the design approach to be any more challenging than the pros.

Harder is better, my personal opinion is that I wish every course was a par 64. With that said, the harder the course is the more casual players and am level golfers will stay away. I wish we could start making par 60's to 64 here in tuls because we have enough par 36's in town



With no disrespect to Kevin, well maybe a little. I take major offense to what he states about keeping "am's" off the course by making it harder, aka Gold standard.

As an amateur player (lower blue level, although ratings don't show it) striving to be a Gold level 1000+ rated player I see the benefit of practicing and competing on these tougher more demanding courses. There is no better tests of your skills to go out and play and compete on one of these courses.

If Kevin is worried about some sub 950 rated player coming to an NT or Major and being on his card and bringing down his game he has nothing to worry about. I seriously doubt that an Am that low will be testing the waters in an event that big. The Am's at those events will be near pros and will not effect him or the other tourning pros.

I personally support making a course as challenging and rewarding as possible. I do not agree with one of our local designers that say there should be a route to the pin off the tee box. Make some landing zones and hazards that block the ace run.

Harder courses make for better players. But even though I choke on these words, I agree with Mike Kernan. All courses should have a mix of different levels of holes. All too hard or all too easy gets boring and the players do not get better.

"Hyzer bombs are the throws of the weak."

If you read Kevin's post carefully, he is not talking about Am players, but casual players. We have a course or two in DFW I generally avoid because of the casual traffic. It's no fun to play a non-challenging course and have to wait on every tee.

And those players tend to stay away from the tougher, more demanding courses nearby.

This Blue/Gold issue is not about easy (lower par) versus tougher (higher par) courses, it's about holes being designed specifically to challenge a skill level whether Gold, Blue, White or Red. My premise is that many Gold level players will like to play Blue level courses perhaps more than Gold level courses, even if they are the same total length.

Let's say a designer is given identical acreage to develop a course. He designs a 9000' course using Gold level guidelines and also designs a 9000' course using Blue level guidelines. Both course layouts will have several par 4s and at least one par 5. I'm suggesting that for day-to-day play, many Gold level players may prefer to play the Blue level course than the Gold level course, even though the Gold level course is better for spreading their scores during competition.

I'm suggesting a reason is that Gold level players have fun breaking down the Blue level design parameters that allows them to turn Blue 3-shot holes into 2-shot holes for them or being able to reach some Blue 2-shot holes in one shot. It shouldn't be surprising because I think all players have fun doing this. I like being able to reach a Red level 2-shot hole in one shot.

The implications are that in places like Highbridge, NDGC and Renny where there are Gold courses next to challenging Blue level courses, it's possible your Blue level courses will be more popular for daily play even with Gold players. In a related comment, Stan indicates that the Rec players seem to love to play Renny and get brutalized by it more than the Advanced players who are more likley to play other courses like Kilbourne where they can demonstrate their expertise over a less challenging layout.

straight from the horses..uh mouth yeah that is it.....

With that said, the harder the course is the more casual players and am level golfers will stay away.

makes you feel a warm inside don't it

I am definitely not a Gold-rated player, but wanted to give my two cents anyway...
first penny: I think parkintwoputt and Gary Duke misunderstood Kevin's post. Of course, I don't believe either of us three are capable of speaking for Kevin. Based on the punctuation and word content, I believe he was saying that he, as a gold player, prefers courses that are par 64, even though he ackowledges it would keep ams and casuals away because Tulsa already has enough courses to the liking of the ams/casuals. That is just my interpretation, since the thread turned into the "what Kev said" thread.
second penny: I believe the best courses have all levels available, like Crowley. It has blue, white, red, and gold. Different people play from different tees. That is truly the ultimate in course design, all inclusive. People, like my husband, who have a higher rating can play the same couse as myself, with a rec woman rating. When playing casually, it works great. They also have local mini's different nights have different tees. Come on the night you feel most comfortable. I personally, from watching people and listening to people, believe that they prefer the play the medium (white) or slightly higher (blue) rated holes, rather than golds during casual play/practice.

I just read Kevin's post exactly how he said it, "casual and Am level players". Trust me, this does not make me think Kevin is an eliteist, we have it way worse with some the other advanced players here in Birmingham.

By Chucks original post, I thought he was refering to competition and not mainly casual play. I think just for having fun, playing an easier course is preferable for ALL skill levels. But for actual practice and competition, I think the greater the challenge the better you learn.

Now if only Birmingham or Jefferson County will allow us to put in another course, we would not have 20 minute waits to tee off on the weekends, and could actually have a Pro and casual course available at all times. Gold level players do not enjoy a whole course of pitch and putt holes, even Blue players do not like this.

OK so I didn't scroll right far enough this morning.

If that is what he meant, I have to disagree with Kevin's statement.

I think it is more a distinction between casual and tournament players. The casual golfers are out to have fun and display what they already know. The tournament golfer (regardless of skill level) is looking for a challenge and wants to work on the parts of their game that are not strengths. They will be the ones that gravitate toward the more challenging and usually less crowded courses.

The implications are that in places like Highbridge, NDGC and Renny where there are Gold courses next to challenging Blue level courses, it's possible your Blue level courses will be more popular for daily play even with Gold players.



I disagree with this for Renaissance. I just recently TD'ed the Renny Mules tournament and nobody I spoke to had been playing the Original (blue level) course for the last 1-2 years. Original Holes 11 and 12 (no traffic in that area for those playing Gold) bore that truth out as it was evident that there had been very little usage on those holes. We played those holes in the tournament, and those might have been the most practiced holes by players who needed to refresh their memories on how to throw them (tough dogleg right and left - both with elevation changes).


In a related comment, Stan indicates that the Rec players seem to love to play Renny and get brutalized by it more than the Advanced players who are more likley to play other courses like Kilbourne where they can demonstrate their expertise over a less challenging layout.



I will let Stan's comments stand since he is out at Renny much more than I am. But, based on my observations and feedback I get, I would beg to differ somewhat.

Renny may be a bad example of side-by-side Gold and Blue courses. Stan isn't a fan of the type analysis some of our designers are using to determine hole lengths for specific skills. But in fairness, the Blue/Gold/White/Red guidelines are new within the past two years after much of the Renny work was already done. Having played both courses there, I think the Original course may just be a shorter Gold course and not really Blue level. For example, holes 11 and 12 original are challenging one shot holes for Gold level and not necessarily Blue level.

The way the post read did sound like I want to keep am level players off a harder course, but that wasn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that rec and AM level players won't play courses here in Tulsa if it is harder par 54 style. I was just saying I would LOVE to have more par 64 style course around ( ooooor I would like to have 1 par 64 course around :() we are surround by pitch~n~putt here in Tulsa and most local players flock to those courses, while our harder courses are generally empty.

My MAIN thing is, I'm in favor of having two or three tees pads at EVERY course. I think every course should have the capabilities to have a GOLD, Blue and Red layout so that EVERYONE can be happy. All ball golf courses have at least 2 tees why cant we :confused:.

Getting back to your main point of your thread (as stated in the title), this is some input you may already be aware of:
Several tourning pro's asked that the A-Tier Fall Finale not be held at Renny this last October. This may be backing up your premise to a greater or lesser degree. I think one concern was that it was right before the USDGC and the 3.5-4 hour rounds on Original and 4-5 hour rounds on Gold would have plum tuckered them out. And there was no time to rest with the USDGC starting on Thursday.

In one sense those are some mitigating circumstances, but in another sense this points to a real fear of challenging courses. Are not the elite players supposed to be in great physical shape?!

This is all based on second or 3rd hand info since I was not part of the Fall Finale organizing team. But the event was held at a very worthy Hornet's Nest instead of at Renny like it was the year before.

Harder is MUCH better for my wallet :D

Chuck i can definitely see the reasons for the lack of two-shot holes on Snowbowl, but just like the Memorial, it was so f'ing boring throwing 380 foot after 380 foot holes. couldn't the Memorial have had like just 2 holes under 300? i prefer longer courses but really, that back 9 was like 9 holes in a row of 380 foot shots. BO-RING. think a ball golf course would be interesting if every hole was a par 4 400 yds? Nope. So maybe that's why you might get the impression that Gold Pros don't like Gold courses. If that memorial course is listed as one of your "gold" courses, i can see why Pros wouldn't like it. There were a few good holes though.

Anyway, the thread is about Gold players liking Gold courses. I think they do. Not sure why rec players gravitate towards easier designs, but then, I can't relate to Ams like Lagrassa anyways.

The views sure were nice up at Snowbowl though. Maybe next time you'll make that clear. Hack.

I don't consider regular Vista a good Gold course but the holes there are more Gold than Blue range. Most of the best holes for the pros are the temp ones added to the regular course. Certainly Fountain adds balance to the overall hole mix when it's available. The fact that rollers are available everywhere blurs much separation between Blue and Gold skill levels at least from a distance standpoint. There's no reason Vista has to have all of those holes in a narrow length range. Like you suggest, make some of those 380s shorter and some longer to make a better course that's still the same total length. They've got 5 pin placements on some of those holes so the options are there.

but just like the Memorial, it was so f'ing boring throwing 380 foot after 380 foot holes. couldn't the Memorial have had like just 2 holes under 300? i prefer longer courses but really, that back 9 was like 9 holes in a row of 380 foot shots. BO-RING.



Which back 9 were you playing because 17-24 at The Memorial for pros played as follows 17 360ft....18 558ft....19 390ft....20 429ft....21 663ft....22 669ft....23 363ft....24 496ft so i dont know where you got 380ft from. The double ups and the extra 8 holes in the back are some GREAT GREAT GREAT gold level holes. I love holes like that because ANYONE can throw a drive and make a putt but when you start making people throw 3 and 4 good shots per hole to shoot well ALOT of players arent as good as they are on the par 54 course. Bring on the par 64-72 course. They are the ones that seperate the men from the boys :D

Even though im still playing in the boys division :eek:

well, since us PROS started on 17, i was referring to like 8-16.

18-24 was a good stretch, and the best hole was # 7. still yawning just thinking about the rest of that course though.

If thats the case then i agree with you. Those holes were kind of boring but what can you do??? The back holes and the 4to5 and 8to9 make up for the boring holes. I cant wait for next year when THE FOUNTAIN IS DONE!!!!!!!!!! :D

I can't relate to Ams like Lagrassa anyways.



I'm a registered Open player with the PDGA; I haven't played as an amateur in three years. Why do you insist on calling me an Am, you ill-bred lout?



Maybe next time you'll make that clear. Hack.



Maybe you'll have room to talk when you get an article published in Disc Golf World News. Until then you just make yourself look like a jealous douchebag.

I haven't played as an amateur in three years.



You haven't played as an amateur, just LIKE an amateur. D'oh! You're living proof that the PDGA lets anyone into the pro ranks. I must admit I am totally jealous of your incredible writing skills. How do you manage to find that bland robotic-like style everytime? Pick up your phone, the Sleep Deprivation Society of America is calling and they think you're the cure for insomnia.

"Cure for insomnia?" Is that all you've got? The green-eyed monster of jealousy has clouded your ability to come up with creative insults. You're pathetic.

Get a room you two.

I'm a registered Open player with the PDGA; I haven't played as an amateur in three years. Why do you insist on calling me an Am, you ill-bred lout?




well.....technically you've played a few am events within the last three years.........02 Am Worlds 23-Jul to 26-Jul-2002. Taking home an amazing 147th.

I'm a registered Open player with the PDGA; I haven't played as an amateur in three years. Why do you insist on calling me an Am, you ill-bred lout?




well.....technically you've played a few am events within the last three years.........02 Am Worlds 23-Jul to 26-Jul-2002. Taking home an amazing 147th.



And he has played like an AM throughout. Sporting that great 943 player rating. So the question is, why is he on a thread about GOLD level players?

And while Lung call names and throw insults, how many of the Discussion rules you like to post, have you broken. hypocrite!

i'm sorry did someone type something after lagrassa? i just came out of the coma that his last post knocked me into.

02 Am Worlds 23-Jul to 26-Jul-2002. Taking home an amazing 147th.



After totalling my rental car on the way to my third round and missing 15 out of 18 holes, you dunce! Perhaps you missed the 1000-rated round of 46 I shot after that round of 112.

Since the jealous and pathetic Mikey has now recruited all his lackeys to back up his ridiculous accusations and insults, there's no use in this. I'll be the bigger man and bow out.

Now back to course design.......

ok fine, if you had shot an average round (55) that round you would have took home 54th, thats still not much of a reason to move up to open division.

Since the jealous and pathetic Mikey has now recruited all his lackeys to back up his ridiculous accusations and insults, there's no use in this. I'll be the bigger man and bow out.



You already were the bigger man Jeff. That gut of yours is definitely larger than life. :p