When I heard about the new courses in Augusta and who was designing them, I was a little upset. While the guys chosen are great course designers for sure, I was sad to hear that Stan McDaniel was not asked to help.

IMO, he is the greatest course designer ever to live. Just take a trip to Hornets Nest, Sugaw Creek and Renny if you disagree with me.

So, who is the best course designer??

#3482

me :p

Stan wasn't forgotten. Climo, Greenwell and Stan have teamed up for one of the next two courses with Harold Duvall doing the other. Because of Stan's current projects at the time, he felt he'd have more time to devote to the project if he were part of the phase 2 courses rather than the first three.

I'm looking forward to designing a course one day...McCoy put some creative holes in at Copperhead Canyon.

Whoever designed Waterworks in KC has skills.

The longer I play, the more I appreciate quality design. Y'all are making me want to take a trip to North Carolina just to play his designs.

Anyways, I always say Houck, because he creates nothing but quality courses. IMO, a testament to his skills is that some of his older courses, probably at least 15 years, are still considered "very well-designed." They still measure up to the newer well-designed courses.

I also give tribute to the imagination of the USDGC creator, even though I have never played his course. I love the fact that he had a vision, used his imagination to create a challenge and stuck to it. It baffles me that other course designers and players do not embrace his concepts in a more aggressive way.

Also, there are countless other designers whom I don't know by name, but are obviously quality designers. For example, the people behind the 04 world courses are **** good.

Rappin John houck ,Is the Best

Whoever designed Waterworks in KC has skills.



mike, i believe Rick Rosthein layed that one out.

I thought Ace Mason did some of the Waterworks design?

So, who is the best course designer??



Tom Monroe

Ok, I may be a little biased, but I own him some props, he has taught me almost everything I know about disc golf. :D

Anyways, I always say Houck, because he creates nothing but quality courses. IMO, a testament to his skills is that some of his older courses, probably at least 15 years, are still considered "very well-designed." They still measure up to the newer well-designed courses.



See Riverside Park, Victoria TX. I think it's held up well since the olden days, when dinosaucers ruled the air and McCaine didn't hit an ace at every tournament.

Although I haven't played too many other designers' courses, Houck's are testers if simply because they aren't that hard visually. "Throw here to there, easy." /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Evil little man.

Ace Mason did do the original Water Works. The temp configuration was played in the KCWO in 1996. There was probably some tweeking between then and the permanent setup we get today. It is one sweet course, for sure.

As for the best designer, I'd have to go Houck. I'm trying to give him a run for the money.

Most of Houck's courses are in Texas, where the land is often flat with limited foliage and usually devoid of any interesting features. What's scary is how good his designs are considering the land he is given to work with. I often wonder how good disc golf courses could be if John lived in Pennsylvania or New England or North Carolina.

I've played a few of John's courses and they are excellent.

My favorite designs are:
1) Nockamixon - Kevin Labowski & Brian Frederick
2) Renny - Stan McDaniel
3) Tyler State Park & Tinicum Park - Joe Mela
4) Warwick - Dan Doyle

Not only did they do an outstanding job of design, but they never have stopped making their courses better. There is nothing more annoying than a course that is "almost" great but the course designer has fallen inlove with it and won't change it.

I often wonder how good disc golf courses could be if John lived in Pennsylvania or New England or North Carolina.



We'll find out in Augusta

#3504

John Houck - without a doubt (play Circle R and Circle R2) and you will agree. I have to disagree with The Lung though about Johns courses being put on flat land, I cant think of any of his courses that are on flat land except maybe Old Settlers and Riverside Park in Victoria. Other than those two the rest of his courses that I have played are set in the hill country.

Courses for National/World Championships that John Houck has designed:



National Disc Golf Center (18) 2004 Augusta, GA
Strawbale Field DGC (18) San Saba, TX
Meandering Greenbelt DGC (18) San Saba, TX
Colorado River DGC (18) San Saba, TX
Rolling Meadow DGC (18) Wimberley, TX
Circ Hill DGC(18) Wimberley, TX
Old Settlers Park (18) Round Rock, TX
Old Settlers South (18) Round Rock, TX
Circle R Ranch (18) Port Arthur, TX
Berry's Treasure (18) Port Arthur, TX
The Ponderosa (18) Port Arthur, TX






Courses for permanent recreation/tournament play that John has designed:



Guadalupe River Resort Ranch (18) 2004 Boerne, TX
Gonzales City DG Course (18) Gonzales, TX
Edinburg City DG Course (9) Edinburg, TX
Community Course (9) Withheld
South Temple Community Park (18) Temple, TX
Fox River Park (9) Ottawa, IL
Garland Scout Ranch (18) Stonewall, LA
Southwest Trails (18) Austin, TX
Rivery Park (18) Georgetown, TX
South Z. Boas Park (9) Ft. Worth TX
Camelot Park (9) Bryan, TX
Austins Colony Park (9) Bryan, TX
Dixie Land Park (9) Harlingen TX
Quatro Hermanas Ranch (9) Henly, TX
Schreiner University (9) Kerrville TX
Live Oak Park (28) Live Oak, TX
City Park (18) Seymour TX
Moody's Disc Country Club (18) Red Rock, TX
Prince Solms Park (9) New Braunfels, TX
Dallas Baptist University (9) Dallas, TX
San Gabriel Park (9) Georgetown, TX
Woodway Park (18) Woodway, TX
Research Park (18) College Station, TX
Dry Creek Greenbelt (18) Cheyenne, WY
Bonita Rec Center (9) Bonita Springs, FL
West Guth Park (18) Corpus Christi, TX
Greenbelt Park (9) Wells Branch, TX
City Park (9) Clute, TX
Zilker Park Original (9) Austin, TX
Zilker Park South (9) Austin, TX
Searight Park (18) Austin, TX
Searight Alternate (incomplete) Austin, TX
Slaughter Creek Metro Park (18) Austin, TX
Andrew Brown East/West (18) Coppell, TX
Wilson Creek Park (10) McKinney, TX
Live Oak Park (9) Ingleside, TX
Cameron Park (9) Waco, TX
Riverside Park (18) Victoria, TX
Cain Park (18) Athens, TX



And I've seen a few of those "hill country" courses. Sorry, there's no comparison to the elevation changes found in other parts of the country.

Sometimes it's hard to separate the design from the terrain and the development process. There are sites where anyone can look like a genius regardless what they do. Other sites might not have much going for them but the designer did a great job using what was available. From a player's standpoint, a mediocre design on a good site might still be more fun than a "great" design on a flat site with few trees.

Other aspects are what the property owner allows the designer to do. The #1 goal is for the designer to meet the needs of the owner. These constraints may handcuff the designer who can't take out trees that should be removed from a design standpoint or reduces the number or width of wooded holes.

Stan the Man's specialty is course development after the design. He's probably built more structures than several of us combined. The long hole 2 pin placement at Renny is a good example. That pin is only good from a design standpoint because he built the structure. If a designer just plopped that pin on the hill without building the structures, it would not have been a good design. It would have been unsafe and had erosion problems. So, even though a designer might see something that would be awesome, if they don't have the time and/or budget to execute it properly, you might not get to see what they designed in their head but couldn't implement.

Stan the Man's specialty is course development after the design. He's probably built more structures than several of us combined. The long hole 2 pin placement at Renny is a good example. That pin is only good from a design standpoint because he built the structure. If a designer just plopped that pin on the hill without building the structures, it would not have been a good design. It would have been unsafe and had erosion problems. So, even though a designer might see something that would be awesome, if they don't have the time and/or budget to execute it properly, you might not get to see what they designed in their head but couldn't implement.



I just wanted to quote that cuz I FINALLY agree with chuck on something!! I knew this day would come...

The amount of work he has done on the course to make it great is what makes it awesome....stuff like building up pins, adding wire to places where danger is possible....

#3515

Fred Salaz has done great things at Idlewild (pro par 72 eighteen hole course).

The best designer is the one who gets the best support in KEEPING UP HIS COURSE! The best design faulters without upkeep.

That's the ONLY reason in can't be me :-), because I can't get the county to cut the hill, or get the county to commit to the complete 18-hole layout.

For Chuck and other seasoned designers.

Our course Pro, and long time course designer Tom Monroe is venomously against some ideas for placements on our course. And it is for primarily for one reason.

Back tracking.

Two holes in particular, which some of us would like to make more difficult for pros in a tournament would require a slight bit of back tracking to the next tee box. Now this is nothing that would slow down the normal flow of play in a tournament because the current placements are reachable from the teebox already. This would mainly add about 10-15 seconds of walking time to get off the green and out of the throwers way.

Tom's biggest arguement is that people waiting will hold up the tournament play time and cause the tournament to run longer. On a side note, he hates rounds that take more then 90 minutes, 2 hours pushes it for him.

The reason we want to lengthen these holes is because one is basically around a 2.2-2.3 SSA for open players and the other is about 2.6. Moving these baskets would make them closer to 2.8 and 2.9 respectably. Bad drives could easily result in a bogey, though rare. But with a great drive, a birdie is highly possible.

Would (you) as a course desinger think that back tracking is such a terrible thing, if there is design/score benefits from it. Our park is also limited in the amount of space we have, so to make it challenging requires some small sacrifices.

It there not a way to put ina path that doesn't backtrack.

There are a couple of courses that come to mind that have 100% backtrack holes (you throw the hole, and have to walk back past the tee to get to the next hole), but have built paths from the green to the next tee that avoid the fairway.

Not really, both areas are fairly open, some sparse large trees.

But we are talking about 50-60ft of back track per hole, on holes that are 340 and 380ft long.

I don't have a particular problem with back tracking depending on how it's done. The issue has more to do with where the next tee is located in terms of preventing interference from tee shots on the hole just completed. Back tracking is hard to avoid a few times in the routing if you have mulitple tees. I try to balance it so those playing the short tees or long tees don't always have the longer walk.

I'm not in favor of back tracking where you actually walk back up the fairway just completed for over 100 feet. I'm thinking more of back tracks on a 30-45 degree angle where the group moves quickly out of play from the group getting ready to tee off.

To answer twoputts ?
"Would (you) as a course desinger think that back tracking is such a terrible thing, if there is design/score benefits from it. Our park is also limited in the amount of space we have, so to make it challenging requires some small sacrifices".

I would personally rather walk 300 feet to the next tee; than tee of from an area where you can get hit while standing on the tee.

Disc golf is a walk in the park, so whats wrong with a little extra walk to help make it a better course.

Best course designers, lets see,,,,, Our Club Here in St Louis, The River City Flyers!

I am not one to brag but I feel as though our Courses in St Louis and the 2 at Ozark mountain are among the best designed course around.

Well thought out and layed out with 3 pin placements per hole and a great mix of shots on each course.

We are so lucky to have the terrain and room to work with here in the Lou.

This city is getting ready to have a disc golf course explosion and the new tracts of land are just as awesome!
I THINK I SMELL A WORLDS COMING HERE SOON!!!!!

Here is a list of some of our courses.

Jefferson Barracks.
Sioux passage.
Endicott.
Quail Ridge.
Creve Coeur lake (The redesign currently taking place is a 9,800 feet par 70). I have personally spent over 40 hours working on it the last 3 weeks.

Akits run the par 54 at the Ozarks.

The Ozark Mountain: 18 holes 9300 feet par 70.
Course record 62
( Still holds the Highest Scoring average/WCP of any course ever built)with no OB except for creeks and lakes.
I could argue the level of design quality here but I have to give 1/2 the props to Mother Nature.
It was a disc golf course for a million years just waiting to be designed.

On another note, whoever is creating the courses in and around Des Moines should get some votes!
Pickard, Walnuit ridge, ewing!
Does anybody know who's doing them?

I feel to rate designers you need to look at how many courses the person has designed. Mr Houck has designed more coureses than anyone. Some are better than others for many reasons. John is very good at promoting disc golf and convincing parks to install courses. You can be the best designer in the world but if you never get up to bat no one will ever know. I can't really say if John Houck is the best designer in the world but he is the best at selling Disc Golf.

On another note, whoever is creating the courses in and around Des Moines should get some votes!

Des Moines Course Designers:

Grandview Park -- Steve Nixt/Mark Gates
Walnut Ridge -- Steve Nixt/Rodney Gardner
Waterworks Park -- Steve Nixt/John Latch
Big Creek -- Steve Nixt/Rodney Gardner
Southwoods Park -- Rodney Garner
Pickard Park -- Randy Bower/Juliana Korver
Ewing Park -- John Latch/Chris Sprague

Des Moines Course Designers:

Grandview Park -- Steve Nixt/Mark Gates
Walnut Ridge -- Steve Nixt/Rodney Gardner
Waterworks Park -- Steve Nixt/John Latch
Big Creek -- Steve Nixt/Rodney Gardner
Southwoods Park -- Rodney Garner
Pickard Park -- Randy Bower/Juliana Korver
Ewing Park -- John Latch/Chris Sprague



Pickard Park re-design, especially holes 10-15 -- Justin McLuen
Carroll Marty (Ames) -- Jeff Harper
ISU (Ames) -- Steve Kenton
Pre-Worlds Review and Suggestions -- John Houck

On another note, whoever created the courses for Pro Worlds 2005 should get some votes!

Pro Worlds 2005 Course Designers:

Jordan Creek Park -- Pete McLaughlin
Tinicum Park -- Joe Mela
Nockamixon State Park -- Brian Frederick/Kevin Laboski
Little Lehigh Parkway -- Jim Davis/John Duesler
Pre-Worlds Review and Suggestions -- Chuck Kennedy and Dave Gentry

Harold Duvall needs to be on the list. He was the visionary and designer behind Winthrop Gold for the USDGC. Some of his other courses such as Castle Hayne in Wilmington NC are also top quality.

Sometimes it's hard to separate the design from the terrain and the development process. There are sites where anyone can look like a genius regardless what they do. Other sites might not have much going for them but the designer did a great job using what was available. From a player's standpoint, a mediocre design on a good site might still be more fun than a "great" design on a flat site with few trees.



Chuck is right with this point. Harold Duvall considers Steed in Richlands NC to be one of his better designs because of what he produced out of what little was available. Harold took what he had, a flat sometimes windy course out in farmland with only 6 ft tall sawgrass for obstacles, and carved out a course. From the player's viewpoint it turned out to be only an average course because it is flat and has no trees, so you can just throw over the sawgrass. But one thing that most people don't even consider is that he created the course to have the most variety with the prevailing wind. Considering the available terrain that he started with Harold did a very good job and should be justifiably proud.

Harold Duvall needs to be on the list. .



Absolutely.

Of the handful of courses which I have played, the finest course designers I have encountered include : John Houck, Innova (Harold & Dave), Jim Kenner, Gunars Nollendorfs and J-Bird. To date, I have not played a single bad course which they have had a hand in and their courses are essentially superb.

A great course should be varied, unique, demanding and do a fine job with its inherent limitations, if any.

Winthrop Gold (as it continually evloves) is the best course in existence. The creation of artificial Out-of-Bounds and its brilliant application demonstrates to all who pay attention the potential great holes which can be carved out of any location.

Mark Ellis

Ace Mason and Jim Kreeger at WW, with Jim doing a TON of behind the work at Blue Valley. Which many of the top pros will get to play this year. Ace and Jim looked at this land (Blue Valley) about 20 years ago, and ended up getting land approved at Water Works instead. I am just glad to be a small part in helping to bring this course to the arsenal that is KC. We have many more coming in, and then we will have many others that help. The true best designer is the one that helps with the design, the implementation, and then the upkeep. Maintenance and evolution truly help all of us in disc golf, and hopefully we create others that want to play and create.

Jack

While Winthrop Gold is a fine design, it involves way too much urban intrusion for it to be the best course in existence.

The best course is Idlewild and it was designed by Fred Salaz (although some others had input too).
SSA from the longs is about 67.5

Disc 'n Dat Bluegrass Open at Idlewild May 6 & 7 (http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=5500)

Masters at Idlewild - June 10 and 11 (http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=5617)

Will the MA1 division play the longs at Idlewild in the Blue Grass Open?

I am just trying to figure out what type of score to expect.

I'll put my vote in for Dan Doyle, designer of the Warwick course (NY) home of the Skylands NT.

Since no one has added my name to the list I guess I'll toot my own horn.

Yawl ever heard of Ozark Mountain or Akitas run?

What about Jefferson Barracks, Sioux Passage, Endicott, Sioux Passage, Creve Coeur or Foundation Park in Centralia, IL.?

Ozark Mountain, nuff said. :cool:

Dave you started it.15 perm courses all on golf courses.15 temp courses and 2 parks and 1 college.Fly 18 ,design does not have gimmicks ...you win by skill ,not luck.I have not cut down 1 tree in 8 years of design. I work with what I have, with lots of obsticles , that you do not have at a park.We are now seeing par 4s and 5s in parks and major events.These are the wow factor......Fly 18 will follow golf ,the game we are playing.I have more courses this year north east, and north west and another in orlando.Thanks to all that have supported Fly 18 the vision is growing....

Yes Reese but how many actually stay in the ground? No need to cut trees either when you have a golf course to work with. I am sure most people could make a nice course without cutting any trees on Pebble Beach. :D

By the way I have played your course in Fort Worth and I think it is one of the worst "designed" courses I could imagine.

After seeing that course and what you call a great design I would hate to see what you could do on some nice Ozark land.

Does that mean you are not comming to my birthday party? :DI have a kangroo piniata...... :D

Apples and oranges.
Ball golf courses and disc golf courses have different sets of variables, etc.
I have never said that Reese's designs are bad, I just will never play them again. :o

In the Midwest, props must be given to Duster Don Hoffman and Gary Lewis! These guys have carved out some great courses over the past 20 years!

The Ozark Mountain: 18 holes 9300 feet par 70.
Course record 62
( Still holds the Highest Scoring average/WCP of any course ever built)with no OB except for creeks and lakes.




For now !! :eek:
:D

Coming soon..La Pine State Park, Oregon. this will be a punishing 18 Holes - Par 72 thru Old Growth Ponderosa Pines along the Deschutes River :D

The history of course design should be divided into B.W.G. and A.W.G. (before and after winthrop gold).

The best designed permanent course that I've played is Idlewyld, although there are quite a few that I can't wait to get a chance to play.

The most fun I've ever had playing disc golf was at Hilltop Golf Course in Plymouth, MI. Reese and I had the pleasure of doing the temp layout up and down the big hills of the pine-lined fairways. Lots of craaaazy rollers not the least of which was Timmy Gill's famous flick roller that ramped of the roof of the maintenance shack to 15 ft. Reese, remember the days of "big and real"?

Just a little over a month now before Mike and I head down to the Bahamas to do the layout for the Disc Golf Cruise course. It won't be the longest or the hardest course, but we're sure hoping to make one of the most fun courses ever! Stay tuned for an announcement on the cruise front coming very soon!

In my experience that would be in no order:

Dan Doyle Warwick
Joe Mela Tyler
Gary Dropcho & Crew Knob Hill
Bill Boylan Laural Springs
Stan McDaniel Renny
Kevin Laboski Nockamixon
Rocco Davis & Crew Little Lehigh
Tony Ellis Whipping Post

I like Houck designs. I haven't played to many courses out of Texas though. The out of Texas courses I have played, I'm not sure who designed them. If you never played Wimberly or San Saba(which is no longer with us) You truly missed out on some great Texas, Houck designed courses.

The only Houck courses I've played were the 4 Pleasure Island courses. Now I understand that there is only one left and it was my least favorite of the bunch. I've always heard good things about his courses though.

I've never played any of Chuck's courses either. Or Fly 18 or Gateway courses.

It'll be nice when more of them get evaluations completed so we can at least look over the numbers.

You've seen a few glimpses though in MADC land. I've influenced improvements on several courses such as Warwick (7), Wolfe Woods, Tyler (I think, ask Mela), Jordan (Worlds only, it sounds like), Campgaw (routing hopefully), Paw Paw (I wish ) and Lehigh (7, and in Finals: reversed 2 plus 17-18).

I liked the design and flow of the three Highbridge courses I played (HB gold, BH and GR).

I only wish there were more roller opps. But I think that had more to do with the courses' condition and newness more than it's design.

I hope I can play in July.

I only wish there were more roller opps.



Me, too. You can count on more in the future. Once the various projects remaining on several holes get completed, he plans to till and/or roll some of the fairways to smooth them out for rolling. That may be a few years from now though at the end of a season.

Paw Paw (I wish )

I was going to pipe in and say Spencer Thurman and Tony Ellis for the design of Paw Paw's two 18 hole courses...but I didn't want to open the door for Chuck to start busting on the crossing fairways at the woodshed :).... Sidebar: Chuck there are NO crossing fairways at the Whipping Post...have you played Paw Paw since the inception of the second course :confused:????

It's not just crossing fairways in some cases but just having "fair"ways especially on some of the new holes on the Whipping Post. I saw it just after it was opened so I expect a few more trees may have come down since then. If I'm wearing my "guest" hat on private property, I strive to be gracious and appreciate what the hosts have done which is develop a very cool place to visit and play. If I'm wearing my PDGA designer hat, there are some design cocerns. That's all. Spencer's design philosophy diverges from what more conventional active designers might do. But that doesn't mean what he does isn't fun for many people, plus it's his property. Fun and "good design" (subject to opinions of course) don't always jive.

Stan the Man's specialty is course development after the design.



The following is a quote made during last year's PFDO:

"Stan [McDaniel] is happier with a chainsaw in his hands."
- Billy Crump, July 2005

PawPaw is VERY FAIR. Just follow the tree stumps and you will find yourself in the fairway.


And PITTSBURGH has THE BEST disc golf. I can't imagine there are many courses that can contend with Knob Hill and Moraine. And I can't wait for our newest course that will be open in July.

... Jefferson Barracks is a sweet-looking and very challenging Course ...
.
.
... McCormack , if you designed that one ; Mr.Gateway needs to be on the list .
.
.
... (just being on the List with Houck is an honor , ay?) ...

The Ozark Mountain: 18 holes 9300 feet par 70.
Course record 62
( Still holds the Highest Scoring average/WCP of any course ever built)with no OB except for creeks and lakes.




For now !! :eek:
:D

Coming soon..La Pine State Park, Oregon. this will be a punishing 18 Holes - Par 72 thru Old Growth Ponderosa Pines along the Deschutes River :D


Magilla, you won't be bragging about Old Growth Ponderosa Pines when the Western and Mountain Pine Beetle have their way with your trees. Sounds like a nice course for now. :(

It's not just crossing fairways in some cases but just having "fair"ways

I know you did not make this comment, after designing some of the holes that are on North Valley.

There was just one hole that could have used several more trees out of there if the Park Department would have let us. That was my biggest disappointment among the holes we set up for PW2001 (that and the funky tee pad on Oakwood #3). Unfortunately the park guys don't play and those three lower holes were removed for erosion projects and we don't know if we'll get that area back with lots fewer trees due to the work. No way that 1030+ players should ever have taken 7s on it though. Even I never took more than 6.

When you come to Highbridge for PW2007, you will see the kind of wooded fairways possible when the owner himself is a logger.

hopefully I will be there.

We won't let you down with your enjoyment of Wisconsin courses.

It's not just crossing fairways in some cases but just having "fair"ways

I know you did not make this comment, after designing some of the holes that are on North Valley.


LOL!!!! Wait untill you see Granite Ridge. LOL!!!

What's wrong with Granite Ridge? That was my favorite follewed by Blueberry hill. There was only 1 hole with a tight fairway #6 I believe.

First of all, I should say that Highbridge Hill is located on a spectacular piece of property for a Disc Golf Course. No doubt.

The biggest design error that I noticed at the Granite Ridge Open last year was hole #11. The only way to not have a blind second shot at the pin was to fade your drive long & left. The problem was in doing so you drive would end up in the fairway of #13 ( if not right next to the #13 basket ). There's really no excuse to crowd the holes like that when you have over 600+ acres to work with. Most of the course was OK. I just didn't like the flow of holes 8 thru 14.

You'll be happy to know that #11 is in the process of being changed for this season including some other tweaks in that weaker section of the course including holes 8, 11-13 area. Perhaps it wasn't clear that the #11 fairway was a temporary one that we were forced to use because of some drainage problems John hadn't resolved on the planned fairway on the other side of the trees toward the road.

The Ozark Mountain: 18 holes 9300 feet par 70.
Course record 62
( Still holds the Highest Scoring average/WCP of any course ever built)with no OB except for creeks and lakes.




For now !! :eek:
:D

Coming soon..La Pine State Park, Oregon. this will be a punishing 18 Holes - Par 72 thru Old Growth Ponderosa Pines along the Deschutes River :D


Magilla, you won't be bragging about Old Growth Ponderosa Pines when the Western and Mountain Pine Beetle have their way with your trees. Sounds like a nice course for now. :(



That issue is considered "been there, done that" around here.

The "Pine Beetle" thing has been through here already.

Im sure it is not GONE though :p

As we design and build this course we will be removing a HUGE number of trees in the construction of fairways etc.

We will also be THINNING the entire area for "Fuels Reduction" By doing this we will greatly improve the Areas ability to resist Beetle infestation ;)

The trees are SO DENSE that we can afford to lose a few /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

This will most definatly be the future site for the "Match Play Championships" /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

:D

You'll be happy to know that #11 is in the process of being changed for this season including some other tweaks in that weaker section of the course including holes 8, 11-13 area. Perhaps it wasn't clear that the #11 fairway was a temporary one that we were forced to use because of some drainage problems John hadn't resolved on the planned fairway on the other side of the trees toward the road.


That's good. At least you do recognize that the initial design in that area was "weak", and yo are going to take measures to correct it. Good Luck.

As is the case most places, you can't always do what you want to do, or get there as fast as you'd like to, even on private property. The original design for 11, shooting down the other ball golf fairway toward the marsh with options to throw across or go around, would have been one of the coolest holes on the whole property. However, the county prevented John from lowering the marsh level a foot, so the ground remains way too soft/soggy for playability. He's getting trees transplanted in the 8/12/13 area to make that section a little more interesting.

No matter how you try to justify it, it was still poor design. If you have a trouble area, you should clear it up before the hole is put into play. Installing the hole anyway ( especially with the known trouble ) is irresponsible, and only puts the players safety at risk.

First of all, I should say that Highbridge Hill is located on a spectacular piece of property for a Disc Golf Course. No doubt.

The biggest design error that I noticed at the Granite Ridge Open last year was hole #11. The only way to not have a blind second shot at the pin was to fade your drive long & left. The problem was in doing so you drive would end up in the fairway of #13 ( if not right next to the #13 basket ). There's really no excuse to crowd the holes like that when you have over 600+ acres to work with. Most of the course was OK. I just didn't like the flow of holes 8 thru 14.



Was that the long hole that doglegged right and had Ob along the fairway? If so I loved that holed and threed it one round. :D

Sure it was a cool shot. That's not the point. It's how it fit ( or conflicted ) with the rest of the course layout. I looked at the new map and it different that the map I have from when I played there. So, obviously there was a problem & they change it. Good.

My favorite hole on Granite Ridge was #7 in the short position.

No matter how you try to justify it, it was still poor design. If you have a trouble area, you should clear it up before the hole is put into play. Installing the hole anyway ( especially with the known trouble ) is irresponsible, and only puts the players safety at risk.



I really don't remember that hole as conflicting much with the #13 fairway, however I haven't seen it since last July. If I recall, you'd have to go very very far out left (probably around 200-300 feet from the brush on the right) to get to the #13 fairway. I agree that the optimum shot was probably around 120 feet out left, but anything much more than that, you're just getting further and further from the basket. I really don't think they were THAT close, and I didn't once feel like my safety was in jeopardy. Just my $.02. BTW I thought that hole was very cool and challenging. (I think i had a 4 and a circle 8 if I'm not mistaken. :D)

I wonder how the WCP is for Blue Valley?

Come play it this weekend. course record is a 60, and I still have a bounty for $100 for the first score of 59 or lower on the course. Some one way hit it, but we didn't have all the "top" pros this year at the Wide Open, we just had some great players that weren't going to Japan. Lets see what happens this weekend.....

Funny how the vast majority of people pick the designer that is close to them (designed their favorite local courses).

F........1..........8 :)

Funny how the vast majority of people pick the designer that is close to them (designed their favorite local courses).



It is alot like the old question. What is the best course? The one that is 15 minutes from my house.

I think Andi Lehman should be given big props on designing Spring Valley-Spring,TX (18 holes- wooded disc golf holes and 9 holes ball golf/disc golf) and Oak Meadows (nice course in an nice subdivision surrounded by 300-400K homes with a couple holes shooting over the nice community lake-by far the best public course in TX)

F........1..........8 :)


Reece are you still involved in Disc golf?

I havent heard or seen from you in a while.
How many flyboy 18 courses are in the ground now?

Do you sell discs at your courses?

lots /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gifPapa smurf is doing okiedoiki ..My new Riverside course is doing well ...I have an event this weekend B tier 2 day par 71 12,640 ft...a big one.I have 2 more to do this year.Hope all is well at happyway... :D

I think Andi Lehman should be given big props on designing Spring Valley-Spring,TX (18 holes- wooded disc golf holes and 9 holes ball golf/disc golf) and Oak Meadows (nice course in an nice subdivision surrounded by 300-400K homes with a couple holes shooting over the nice community lake-by far the best public course in TX)



You sure Joe? I mean what about Cam East, Z-boaz, Cedar Hill, Live Oak, etc?

It is much better now compared to when it was 1st put in. If a few trouble spots would be fixed it would be in the top 3 in SE TX. I have heard good things about Oak Meadows as well.

ok- one of the best public courses in TX.I agree with you that Spring Valley does need a few corrections.My post was mainly concentrated on Oak Meadows Place, which is definitely one of the top 5 in TX. My 1-5 public courses in TX would be-
1.Cameron East
2.Z-Boaz
3.Oak Meadows Place
4.Cedar Hill
5.Live Oak

hmmmm, I've always liked the woodshed & the Wippingpost by Spencer Thurman in PawPaw, WV. Pretty INSANE !! :D

The best course designers are those whom have the vision to take the sport to its next level. Having said that, whom fits that criteria?

I'll take a shot at what elements should be considered in the next level of course development. Three things: (1) more successful pay-to-play facilities, (2) creative course structures and (3) optimization.

(1) Snapper Pierson with Morley Field has lead the way for years with the whole state of Maine being pay-to-play (P2P) with Bob Enman playing a big role in their developments. What's new is that more P2P facilities are popping up in places where free public courses have had a strong presence. The need for more P2P facilities is ESSENTIAL if the growth rate of the sport continues its pace because there are not enough remaining public sites and communities without courses in some areas to service the potential demand.

(2) Harold threw down the gauntlet starting with the artificial OB at Winthrop. Others have copied both his approach to artificial OB and island greens. Stan has been the master of building course structures such as hole 2 at Renny. The next step is to incorporate these concepts into courses across the world and create new types of hazards with the goal to look as natural as possible. Our course designers group has been discussing new concepts like how to do a variety of bunkers that work similar to BG hazards by modifying throws. Those playing PW2007 will see some of these at Highbridge next year and a few other designers are looking to incorporate these in their existing or upcoming courses.

(3) Optimization means the design job isn't over until you prove that your designs actually work well in general and specifically in competition. It's not enough anymore to just design a course that looks cool and is fun to play. If it's used for competition, designers need to learn how to design for specific skill levels, balance the challenges and analyze the scoring results to determine what if any changes might be warranted to spread scores better.

http://www.kikoauctions.com/Listings/Auction%20Listings/1.%202006/09-30-06Mihalik.htm

Check out parcel #6....I'd love to see what a few of the aforementioned designers could do with this piece of property! :)

good points, Chuck, especially:


The need for more P2P facilities is ESSENTIAL




It's not enough anymore to just design a course that looks cool and is fun to play. If it's used for competition, designers need to learn how to design for specific skill levels, balance the challenges and analyze the scoring results to determine what if any changes might be warranted to spread scores better.

(2) Harold threw down the gauntlet starting with the artificial OB at Winthrop. Others have copied both his approach to artificial OB and island greens. Stan has been the master of building course structures such as hole 2 at Renny. The next step is to incorporate these concepts into courses across the world and create new types of hazards with the goal to look as natural as possible. Our course designers group has been discussing new concepts like how to do a variety of bunkers that work similar to BG hazards by modifying throws. Those playing PW2007 will see some of these at Highbridge next year and a few other designers are looking to incorporate these in their existing or upcoming courses.



With the goal to look as natural as possible being the key here. I'd rather no artificial OB than artificial OB that doesn't look natural. We need more course structures such as hole 2 at Renny, and less clowns' mouths, bamboo walls, hay bales, and yellow rope, imo.

How are retaining walls and bakset elevation "hills" made of railroad ties any more natural than mowed grass, roads/paths, yellow rope, bamboo walls, etc??!!

http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/renny_2f.jpg

Now, this hole (Renny 18) is au natural.....and if you miss the peninsula, you can spend forever looking for your disc in the natural stuff.
http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/renny_18d.jpg

How are retaining walls and bakset elevation "hills" made of railroad ties any more natural than mowed grass, roads/paths, yellow rope, bamboo walls, etc??!!



In my mind, there's a big difference between a few pieces of wood, used to stop erosion, that blend in naturally and harmoniously with the surroundings, and totally artificial elements that look gimmicky and wholly out of place.

I vote Jeff LaGrassa as the best course designer. He seems to be the most knowledgable about practically every aspect of course design and is the true authority. He also has many courses under his belt, such as, uh,

...oh wait he never designed one.

How are retaining walls and bakset elevation "hills" made of railroad ties any more natural than mowed grass, roads/paths, yellow rope, bamboo walls, etc??!!



In my mind, there's a big difference between a few pieces of wood, used to stop erosion, that blend in naturally and harmoniously with the surroundings, and totally artificial elements that look gimmicky and wholly out of place.



Why? Because that is what Ball Golf does. This is sort of like natural turf vs. artificial. Good is based on what we like. Personally, I'm all for natural obstacles but we should be realistic. BTW - go look at Boise St.'s football field. Talk about embracing alternative paths.

If the goal is to make the course challenging then any means that is used is good. Who ever heard of importing sand into a course to make sand traps. I'm betting at some point someone said... "Oh, that looks so fake!"

So Chuck, what kind of things are you thinking to bring in to make shots more difficult, aka bunkers?

I think we had a discussion somewhere on this topic but not this thread about bunkers and buncrs. These are ways to create challenges that don't involve an immediate penalty but make the shot tougher if you land in them. Digging pits or placing scattered boulders in an area were some of the ways. Being forced to take relief on the line of play or to a drop zone (without penalty) if you land in marked areas were other ways.

This is one of the threads:

Hazards for Disc Golf (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=314056&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Why? Because that is what Ball Golf does. This is sort of like natural turf vs. artificial. Good is based on what we like. Personally, I'm all for natural obstacles but we should be realistic. BTW - go look at Boise St.'s football field. Talk about embracing alternative paths.

If the goal is to make the course challenging then any means that is used is good. Who ever heard of importing sand into a course to make sand traps. I'm betting at some point someone said... "Oh, that looks so fake!"



Every unnatural obstacle makes us look more and more like putt-putt golf, and we lose our credibility along with it, imo.

IMO things like these silly obstacles indicate poor course design. A well designed course should not need things like this to make a good course.

If artificially created sand traps, waste areas, mounds and ponds are installed for ball golf with special hazard rules in some cases, I'm not sure why creating a natural version of these traps for DG would be inappropriate.

Good design needs no gimics....F18

If artificially created sand traps, waste areas, mounds and ponds are installed for ball golf with special hazard rules in some cases, I'm not sure why creating a natural version of these traps for DG would be inappropriate.



They wouldn't be inappropriate. Again, it's not that the hazards were artificially created, it's how they look. Ponds, mounds, bunkers, terraces, etc. look natural and fit in on both ball golf and disc golf courses. Whereas I believe that blatantly artifical elements do not.

Course design is about challenging the players. Aesthetics are so secondary. I mean, what is more important: a device that creates a fair challenge to the player, or your aversion to something unnatural?

btw. Is the road played as OB a gimmick, or is it natural?

Course design is about challenging the players. Aesthetics are so secondary.



No way that I agree with that. Aethetics is a very important consideration in course design.

If you had 2 holes that were equally challenging .... the one that was the most aethetically pleasing would be the better of the two.

I think that if a course designer trys too hard to just make a course "challenging" that they might miss the point of making a fun course to play ( and beautiful to look at ). Making a course appropriately challenging is important, but never at the expense of aesthetics. Just my opinion.

Yes if two holes were equally challenging the one with the best aethetics would a better hole.

Then again if you have a very challengin hole with little aesthetic compared to an ok hole with a lot of aesthetics I would take the challenging one. Hence aesthetcics is secondary. Is that what you meant James?

Yes Matt.

You have restored my faith in the Texas school system. :D

Well your faith may fail you next year this glimmer of hope moves on... :D

Then again if you have a very challengin hole with little aesthetic compared to an ok hole with a lot of aesthetics I would take the challenging one. Hence aesthetcics is secondary.



One's opinion does not make something a fact. Nice try. Sounds like George W. logic is running rampant in the Texas school system. ;)

I would take the ok hole with a lot of aesthetics and try to make it more challenging. :D

The real challenge is to incorporate natural aesthetics, safety, shot difficulty, and shot balance without sacrificing one for another.

Back along the lines of good course designers...

I think that intimate knowledge of the land gets overlooked too often. A avid disc golfer (who has played at least 50 courses) who walks, hikes, hunts, etc on the property day in and day out will ultimately design great course. Knowledge of topography, and natural features is vital in course design. It creates fun, interesting, and unique holes. Sure, there may be some holes that are too short for the pros, or slight crowding in some areas, but all in all, I'd say it will turn out better than hiring a "professional" designer to come out for a weekend, or just a day to create a layout. I sure hope that paid designers spend 5-10 days and 20-40 hours just getting to know the land before they finalize a layout. Cookie cutter courses in city parks are okay, but I'd take some private course on someone's personal property anyday (like Axldog's!). I take extreme pride in my first design at Winter Park. I openly admit that some things could be changed, rearranged, etc. But in all, it is a very unique course, extremely well balanced with multiple holes offering each type of hole - wooded, open, left, right, uphill, downhill, long, and short. The only thing missing are longer holes with desgnated landing zones for your tee shot before changing direction for another long throw to the pin. The overall good design is due to my intimate knowledge of the land from hiking, hunting, and mountain biking on it for countless hours before designs and additional holes were laid out.

As far as natural obstacles go, I say use what is there, but don't add too much more. Here are example of using what's there...
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Tee%20Pictures_files/image026.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Tee%20Pictures_files/image030.jpg
Natural archways are nice. Same thing with a tree lined "tunnel" shot in the woods. These natural obstacles, along with good hole design, actually help your game. You learn accuracy. And if you really think about it, if you actually hit this ski lift support, you wouldn't have had a good throw had it not been there. I try to use these natural features to "funnel" your throws to where they should be - if you make it through the maze of trees, it will be an amazing throw, if you hit one, you're better off anyway because you would have been way off course if it was not there. Like this tunnel (all the scraggly dead branches have been cut, just big trees remain)
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image004.jpg

I prefer to utilize risk/reward of the natural topography much more. A hole that is straight ahead and 200 feet away becomes spectacular when there is a 75 foot dropoff 20 feet behind the basket. I believe in utilizing all skills for a well rounded game, not just driving over 400 feet (we have 3 holes well over 400 feet too). I don't make any effort to keep 30 feet clear around the basket - if the backside is not clear, well then you better control your drive and not be pin high! If you have a 25 foot putt and a huge dropoff behind the basket, you better think hard before you rifle your putter at it. I believe having to make those risk/reward choices on most drives and putts brings incredible enjoyment and satisfaction to the game.
Here is a hole that drops off considerably in two sides of the basket, it's one of the most complimented holes on the course
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Winter%20Park%20Disc%20Golf_files/image002.jpg

Everything is a matter of preference and opinion - there is NO right or wrong. What's you opinion of some of these holes?

(Yeah, I was bored this afternoon, my post looks like a novel!)

Knowledge of the property is definitely important. But a professional designer will likely see the property in some ways that go beyond an experienced player that has owned or walked the property for years. One trap is that too much property knowledge can solidify ideas in a way that makes it hard to consider alternatives. Ideally, a team effort between a professional designer and a person with good property knowledge can be effective.

I'm not sure that players realize that several of the professional designers I've worked with have photographic memories. They are able to just walk a property and create a pretty good mental map of the terrain. This allows us to mentally walk the property in our heads and continue with design "What Ifs" anytime. So, spending enough time to prepare our mental maps gets the process started. Then, we go back to the property to check out how our ideas look on the actual property to make sure we didn't miss something.

Heavily wooded terrain takes much more effort to mentally map. I've found using GPS to be helpful to systematically map a heavily wooded area on paper and develop a better mental picture.

Chuck, I know exactly what you mean about the photographic memory. I have one, and can layout hole after hole in my mind as I daydream throughout the day. One thing that is missing though is spacial perception, and small details. I am always thinking about additional holes, shortened holes for ace race layouts, and gold tee positions. I imagine installing a hole across a certain valley that I found an opening in, but what I can't picture are the small branches that need to be cut, or even smaller trees. You see, I get that mental picture of the end result, and miss some details. I also find it hard to remember where the ground was sufficiently level to allow for tees. I am always forming gold tee layouts in my mind too. I back up some of the tees, but I find it hard to spacially see where this new tee is in relation to the installed tees and baskets.

I suppose most others with photgraphic memories are the same. We can tell you how many trees are in the way, even a general arrangement, but then falter with their relation to other objects that we didn't study as closely. Designing a course on photographic memory probably leads to excess construction time for things that werejn't accounted for.

I agree, a collaborative effort with expereinced designer and experienced land owner is the best approach! I would have welcomed any and all comments, unfortuately I missed Duster Don Hoffman's visit up here to look at the property. I also had a sense of personal pride in wanting to accomplish this myself, so comments would have been taken at face value, not necessarily to actually materialize.

Great use of the topography is one thing, but an experienced designer will likely be able to look at the same property and make a few subtle changes to improve the versatility and usability of a course. Reverse this hole, Move the blue tee to the right and back a bit, but put the white a little more forward and left and you will increase the scoring spread for this hole.

They will also look at group of holes as a whole and evaluate the sum of the parts as well as each hole individually. I'm not saying that an experienced golfer can't develop a good course, but that it's less likely that a player that hasn't spent a lot of time designing and redesigning courses will put together a great course.

Couple thoughts:

I love playing disc golf on ski mountains!!! I think that in almost all cases, a ski mountain course is superior to one on a golf course.

I love having baskets that are close to drop-off's as long as they are traversable. (I do not like holes that frequently result in lost discs as your <$10 round of golf quickly becomes more expensive when you lose $25 in plastic.) We need to continue to find more ways to incorporate the possibility of three-putting into disc golf.

I applaud all efforts (volunteer or for-hire) to create new courses, particularly pay-per-plays.

I do have to say, however, that I believe any new design on a sufficiently large piece of property that does not include par 4's and 5's is another example of an opportunity to truly move the sport forward wasted. Until the standard for our sport is to emulate what's great about ball golf in terms of course design, par, pro galleries, etc. we will always be commonly viewed as just frisbee in the park.

On a tangent: This philosophy applies to almost all new course designs, even 17 acres in a park. I think it's much better for the longterm development of the game to put a great par 36, 9 hole course that utilizes 3-4 tees and can challenge red through gold level players than cram in 18 holes that aren't designed for any particular skill level. I am adamantly opposed to the mentality that par 4's and 5's will "scare" away new players. This is the game of golf and we should introduce players to the true game from day 1! Much greater care should be given to create courses where beginners can experience the game of golf played from the appropriate set of tees, while also seeing top players demonstrate their skills from the blue and gold tees to view what's possible and give them something to aspire to.

Regarding course design experience: Most multiple course designers have demonstrated vision, initiative, salemanship, and perseverance to get these courses in the ground. They have fuelled the growth of the sport and we all owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Many of these folks either have or are developing a strong grasp on the ideas of par, score spreads, and designing tees appropriate for specific skill levels. Some of them, however, are addicted to a design mode that fails to extract the true potential from properties.

The status quo doesn't help us grow.

I've seen so called "experienced designers" design an absolutely terrible course .... ever heard of Brown's Creek in Stillwater, MN. Probably not, because it was really poorly designed. And it was designed by 2 members of the PDGA course design committee.

Just because someone claims to be an "experienced designer", does not guarantee that they are a "good designer". They might just be experienced at installing average courses that will need to be redesigned again and again. That can become expensive when they don't get it right the first time.

But, by all means, I suggest that you consult with as many designers and players as you can. Just don't fall victim of blindly believing in someones padded resume. It's possible that a first time designer can produce a good quality course that's even better than a course coming from an "experienced designer".

Example: In the early 1990's, Geof George wasn't an experienced designer when he designed Kaposia, yet it was still well designed.

Don't know the people or places that you are referring to, but do know that sometimes the designer is hampered by restrictions placed onthe design by the land owner or parks dept. Sometimes less than stellar holes have to be put in.

The thing I do think experienced designers look at many things as far as safety, flow, and scoring seperation that many first time designers would not.

I don't trust anyone explicitly, but would want more than one designer involved with any course I was putting in.

I think that we can all agree that getting input from multiple sources is always a good idea. It seems to me that the term "experienced designer" can be somewhat misleading. I just caution anyone who wants to go out and shop for an "experienced designer" soley based upon quantity. It is a trust & credibility issue. Believe it or not, poor courses have been designed by so called "experienced designers". "Experienced designers" still make mistakes, so don't believe that they can design a better course than you just because they are "experienced" and you are not. Listen to what they have to say, as they may be able to add some valuable input. But don't assume that they are going to know all there is to know about good course design. Always get a second opinion.

Also, if there are restictions placed on a property, then it is the designer's responsibilty to design within those parameters. That should not be an excuse to compromise good design practices and standards.

The possibility of a three putt is probably one of the greatest things we can add. There seems to be a whole lot of emphasis placed on par 4 and 5 with incredible fairways and distance. But a 3 putt green will easily increase score spread with much less effort. I know so many golfers that rifle it at the basket, straight ahead for long putts. To me, that doesn't make them a good putter - how do they do going around or through obstacles? And there is no risk at missing off the backside. If risk was involved on every green, players would defintely change their thoughts on rifling the disc at the basket in fear of missing and two throws coming back. Ball golf greens are bumpy, curved, and multidirectional for a reason! In disc golf right now, it is definitely the opposite of putt for dough, drive for show.

"being hampered by restrictions of the land owner and parks department" is one thing, but restrictions based on topography is an additional one. I am also a minimalist when it comes to hole design. I want to cut the fewest anmount of trees as possible. We have no bulldozer, no tractors to bring out the concrete and stone, no chainsaws, etc. We only cut/clear trees less than 4" diameter, only very low and dead branches, and shrubs and grasses. We cart all the supplies and equipment out to the remote holes with manpower and wheelbarrows (trucks wouldn't fit, and we don't have ATVs). We dig the holes by hand, through roots, rock, and clay! I walk all around the skil hills and woods, looking for natural openings that need minimal clearing. Flat areas for tees is another restriction. With doubling as a ski hill, we cannot raise tee areas, so we need to see an opportunity for a good fairway, and THEN see if any area will also support some tees. There is not a lot of luxury of moving tees "back and to teh right", or forward and left". We're designing to an area, NOT making teh area fit into our plans. 100% utilization of the natural land features. So, by knowing the land, I'm saying it provides a greater advantage to designing a nice course than an outsider "professional".

The course in Kewaunee is at least 20 miles from other popular courses and major cities. It's design reflects that.
The amateur tee has a basket in visible sight, reachable by most players with simply a decent throw, provide a deuce opportunity to newcomers with to good throws, still offer all the variety and shot selection, and doubles as an ace race layout for experienced players. The terrain is difficult enough, the red tees had to be easy enough to entice newcomers to play again.
The pro tee is a challenge for players, they add distance, change the flight path, and are placed at distances that make a player decide to go for it, or lay up for a better approach. Baskets are not always visible from the pro tee.
Additional, undeveloped design work has also been completed, but not advertised. We have defined gold tee locations for all 18 holes. 12+ of them are easily par 4 holes, while some could be stretched back for a par 5 due to increased obstacles and mandatory landing zones on 90 degree fairways. They can be used for pro tournament play. There has also been clearing to the left or right and behind the basket to stretch the hole 25-100 feet. They can be installed if we had funds for more sleeves and concrete.

What I'm saying is that options should always be there. Tees definitely need to appeal to all, and offer challenge. With unlimited funds and manpower, and heavy machinery, we all could design courses with three tees and three pin placements. Every variable needs to be condsidered - good course designers do. Don't knock the local guy because he doesn't have a resume.

The possibility of a three putt is probably one of the greatest things we can add. There seems to be a whole lot of emphasis placed on par 4 and 5 with incredible fairways and distance. But a 3 putt green will easily increase score spread with much less effort.



As I said before, I definitely agree about the putting green ideas. I think that increasing three putts also goes back to designing approach shots that aren't "easy" to park. When more players are required to go for 60 foot putts to make birdies while taking on the risk of three-putting, the dynamic will have been significantly improved. (and I do not support lengthening all 400 ft. holes to 460 ft. to create the 60 ft. putts. it should come from putting baskets in locations that are very dangerous to go for aggressively from the fairway)

You obviously agree that putting in the "effort" to create 12 gold par 4 holes is worth it. I'm arguing that courses should be designed that way from the get-go and that all tee levels whether they be green, red, white, blue, or gold should be able to play golf on par 3's, 4's, and 5's. Par 4 is the norm in ball golf and will be in disc golf as well in the future. The question that I pose to all designers is: do you want to look back on your design career and take pride in knowing that you were one of the visionaries that helped elevate the game of disc golf to the status of "real sport" or do you want to bemoan how the sport has become dominated by athletes that throw 450 ft., with a wide arsenal of shots, that can putt, manage courses, and are tough competitors in front of television cameras for $100,000+ while the disc golf dinosaurs are left behind drinking nattie light, smoking fatties, and shooting "10 downs" on dilapidated par 3 courses that were designed for playing with lids.

I totally agree that pin placement can make a big difference with the degree of difficulty and how the hole is played. I like the use elevation to give the player that "putt of death" feel on the green. Nothing scarrier than a wide open putt on the side of a hill, or at the edge of a drop-off.

Some good points Superberry & Axldog. I got to watch one of the World's best (Houck) work his magic on property we hope to develop by Spring 2007 in Kamloops, BC. John spent a minimum of 10-12 hours a day walking the property, marking potential tees and basket locations, possible fairways and landing zones. What he came up with is a pretty fantastic combo of many features, terrain,risk/reward and slippery greens.
We also have experimented with fallaway pin locations on our main course and have a couple of cool ones. One alt basket location is on an earthen mound about 3 feet high with a gully in the background. Total distance to the basket is 515 but if you miss a couple of preferred landing zones with your upshot you are left with this question when you line up for the putt; "How bad do I need this 3?" That is totally what good design should be doing!

I totally agree that pin placement can make a big difference with the degree of difficulty and how the hole is played. I like the use elevation to give the player that "putt of death" feel on the green. Nothing scarrier than a wide open
putt on the side of a hill, or at the edge of a drop-off.



Kind of like this:

Here's the putt on the edge of the drop-off:

http://i14.tinypic.com/2euh853.jpg


Here's the comeback putt if you go long:

http://i14.tinypic.com/34ffxvk.jpg

I've seen many 3 putts or worse on this hole!!

Now that is a very sweet basket location!
And you gotta love the yellow banded discatchers in the woods.

I otta take a picture of the temp hole we put up for tournaments - actually there is one on my website under Ace Race Pictures link (a guy with a brown leather jacket is throwing on the hole on the 8th page). You throw from the open, at the top of a hill, into a narrow opening in the woods about 150 feet away and about 30 feet below the tee. The basket is set in about 30 feet, 20 feet behind it is a dropoff of 50 feet, then a narrow shelf where the mountain bike trail goes through, then another dropoff of 50 feet! It is a straight on ace run, but you're talking 4 or 5 if you miss long.
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Winter%20Park%20Disc%20Golf_files/ace%20race%20pix.doc

nice example!

this is a temp hole used as part of the "mini canyon matinee" tourney. there's an ob pond just behind the rock structure.

http://www.etherbinge.com/MVC-494S.JPG

Depends on what you are looking for in a course. There are many philosophies but i think that a good knowledge of ball golf is essential and understanding of disc flight as it relates to the crossover of ball and disc golf is important. one factor i see overlooked many times is distance control. throwing far is impressive but the game of golf has many skills that a good golfer should demonstrate and raw distance is a small part. a good course should require golfers to prove all skills including course management and solid understanding of "how a disc flies" related to over and under 'stability'.
the best designer? alot of good ones, but the best is yet to come.

The page cannot be found

this is what I get when clicking on superberry links? anyone else

Yep, most of those pix have been removed. Go to my webpage below and then click on Tee Pictures in the Table of Contents. You'll see lots of good examples of utilizing natural terrain and lots of risky greens. Better yet, go to the disc golf review website also listed in my signature and you'll find brand new pitures of all the 18 greens, as well as our nine new holes that have been roughed in.

Just a few examples of the goodies at Winter Park
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/5b57b4c4.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/7839aa81.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/c6d5f3ee.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/ae0fe08c.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/2d29b9fe.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/9998fe36.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/b3816be9.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/e69c3c66.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Tee%20Pictures_files/image104.jpg

I've enjoyed a lot of Gregg Hosfeld's courses...be hard to say who is the best because a lot of the time I have NO CLUE who designed the course I am playing unless it is a local course. Art Heilman and Phil Ferrel teamed up to design one of my favorite courses in Valparaiso, Indiana but they rarely leave town and have confined their efforts to one course (it is amazing). Brian Cummings puts out some nice stuff as well...

duvall, dropcho, houck, doyle, me ;)

I am going to have to say....

Paulie and Ponto from Colorado (Phantom Falls and Beaver Ranch)

Also the guys that created WildCat Bluff in Urbana, Iowa.

I am completely biased for WildCat since this is my favorite course, but I have also played disc all around the country and was truley impressed not only by the guys from Colorado but also Iowa....

Just a few examples of the goodies at Winter Park
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/5b57b4c4.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/7839aa81.jpg
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/2030/c6d5f3ee.jpg

http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Tee%20Pictures_files/image104.jpg



**** Yankee courses! We live in the place where par 4s have become the norm on many new courses and because of that I would have to still go with John Rappin Houck and Mike "The Spartan" Olse.

Wilco, Manor, Kyle, Rockwall, the New Circle C, and the new Course at Ingleside are are very fun and challenging testing your upshot more than anything. Those are just the newest courses and not the Traditional Favorites.

Ingleside is supposed to be Brutal when it goes in and I heard Circ C was the shizznit now but didn't get to play it while at COTO.

Matt do you think Olse may have surpassed John with his newest creations (Circle C and Manor)?

Personally I think a course should have ...

(4) legitimate par 5's with a risk / reward opportunity for an egale or a 6/7 on two of the them.

(4) par 3's with two of them being birdies and two of them being hard birdies.

(10) legitimate par 4s (some of them can be "3.5's that allow for 3s and 4s).

I personally hate courses where most of the holes are 2able. I like courses that force course management.

Circle C and Manor are freakin awesome. The rumors going around about what Mike designed at Ingleside make me tingle. We will be going out there this weekend to take a peak.

IMO Manor is the greatest example of course management at a course I've played (and I've played all over the US). It isn't the most fun course to play due to how hard it is, but it is a great challenge!

Live Oak (SA, TX) is one of the most fun courses to play.

Matt do you think Olse may have surpassed John with his newest creations (Circle C and Manor)?

Personally I think a course should have ...

(4) legitimate par 5's with a risk / reward opportunity for an egale or a 6/7 on two of the them.

(4) par 3's with two of them being birdies and two of them being hard birdies.

(11) legitimate par 4s (some of them can be "3.5's that allow for 3s and 4s).

I personally hate courses where most of the holes are 2able. I like courses that force course management.


Do you think all courses should have 19 holes? :)

Most professional designers who have worked on Gold level courses (which isn't that many) lean towards a total par of 66-69 being the appropriate number for disc golf unlike the ball golf pattern of par 72 with 4 par 3s & 5s and 10 par 4s. The disc golf optimum appears to be minimums of 6 par 3s and 2 par 5s with the rest as par 4s.

Par 3 design options are much richer in our sport than ball golf. We can curve shots right, left, up, down and on the ground. Hit tight or wide open lines. A well designed par 3 for a skill level will be birdied about a 1/3 of the time. So even with just 6 par 3s, a player would only average two 2s a round. Even USDGC with 10,000 feet still has seven par 3s.

Do you think all courses should have 19 holes?

LOL :)

I Like par fours more than 5's. A couple par 5's per course is good, but there is a fatigue factor in there too. Throw too many too far and you're bound to get worn out.

Plus, it can take a long time to play a round. Mainly a factor in tournaments. I would be beat after playing two rounds of a par 70 course. A LOT of golf! I guess you can just play 1 round a day, many tournaments do that.

"Matt do you think Olse may have surpassed John with his newest creations (Circle C and Manor)?"

Heresy!!!!!!

"Matt do you think Olse may have surpassed John with his newest creations (Circle C and Manor)?"

Heresy!!!!!!



Yeah I never said that! Plus Olse always has a few "olselike" sidearm holes thrown in the mix.

I haven't played The New Circle C and will be in Crowley the weekend of the Slaughter C-tier but I plan on getting out there as soon as I can.

Opps double post sorta fixed.

Yeah I never said that! Plus Olse always has a few "olselike" sidearm holes thrown in the mix.

I haven't played The New Circle C and will be in Crowley the weekend of the Slaughter C-tier but I plan on getting out there as soon as I can.


Where are these two courses, I have been hearing a lot about them.

Where are these two courses, I have been hearing a lot about them.

The great state of Texas of course.

Manor (http://www.pdga.com/course-details?id=3002)

Circle C (http://www.pdga.com/course-details?id=783)

"Plus Olse always has a few "olselike" sidearm holes thrown in the mix."

yep but usually more then a few.. :confused:

It must be me. I have suggestions for improvement on every single course I play, multiple times.

It must be me. I have suggestions for improvement on every single course I play, multiple times.
That's because you haven't played Manor.

There are two things I wonder about Manor.
1. Can it be played if the creek is flowing?
2. How do you get from 15 to 16?

1 = Yes
2 = Walk

There are two things I wonder about Manor.
2. How do you get from 15 to 16?after 15 walk to your left and follow the trail across the field. you will be walking parallel to the sidewalk once you go across the grass there is a little hill tee box is on the right under the trees.

Walk? That was helpful Scott. I sometimes skip.
Thanks Chris.