Just a post asking your preference? Do you like them or not?

Can't go high or around anything. Have to throw a nice tight and accurate disc, or you get kicked into the mess of trees on either side.

Here are some examples...
#3 pro tee (most of the small 3"D trees have been cut)
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Tee%20Pictures_files/image010.jpg
#8A am tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image034.jpg
#8B pro tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image036.jpg
#8B am tee (you can see the Discatcher top band behind the tree in the middle)
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image038.jpg
#8C am tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image042.jpg

This is kind of a loaded question because it is all dependent on how far you have to throw on each turn. And this is tied in with how the hole is designed.

Basically it is a balance of distance/throw to the width of the fairway. I mean I don't mind having to throw through a 6' gap, but if that is all I have for 300' that is kind of ridiculous. But throwing throw a gap that small for a run of 70-100' is a little better.

In my mind, I am envisioning a funnel, you are standing at the tip of the funnel and for the first 1/3-1/2 of the distance you have a very narrow opening that widens slightly. But in the later portions, the width opens more in relation to distance from start. That is how I see fairway widths should be designed for the intended throwing distance.

i love the concept of a par four with an hourglass shape. the fairway narrows considerably to a tight point about 350-425 ft. from the tee. the longer one attempts to drive, the tighter the shot becomes and the greater the chance of getting into the shule. playing a more conservative shot off the tee would minimize the risk of getting blocked out from the gap for the second shot, but lengthen the distance required for that shot. this is not to say that an initial tight point couldn't be included as well.

i generally think it's a bad idea to have a fairway that widens as it goes from tee towards target. it is good to reward distance, but not without increasing risk.

this hole (http://www.playerscup.org/cs_14.html) provides an example of the hourglass concept, even though it's far from being a "wooded" hole. from the tee it looks as if the tee shot is wide-open. in practice, however, the narrowness of the tunnel approaching the basket means that the longer the drive from the tee, the smaller the landing area that will provide a clean angle into the shute. a huge roller off the tee that finishes wide right will leave no look into the shute and almost no chance at birdie.

That hole is wide open dude. Wide wide open.

The other pics of the tunnel shots, I think every course should have one or two of those type holes but more than that is just lame. Holes like that are so easy to build, you just cut 2 or 3 trees and call it a fairway. When you see a course with too many holes like that, it just makes you think the people who built the course were lazy. It's basically a sign of lazy punks, didn't feel like clearing real fairways. That's all.

obviously you didn't read my post

I don't see the hourglass. Looks more like a grandfather clock.

http://tinyurl.com/yez7og

#3 pro tee (most of the small 3"D trees have been cut)
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Tee%20Pictures_files/image010.jpg



<font color="red">looks like a fine hole except why keep 1 skinny little tree in the middle? It appears to be uphill and tight so, i guess I don't see the point in making the hole a luckshot by avoiding one little tree when you rope a good line. </font>


#8A am tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image034.jpg



<font color="green"> blahzay...what does the pro tee look like? </font>


#8B pro tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image036.jpg



<font color="blue">I like this hole, how long is it to the pin? </font>

http://tinyurl.com/yez7og



YEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#3 pro tee (most of the small 3"D trees have been cut)
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Tee%20Pictures_files/image010.jpg



<font color="red">looks like a fine hole except why keep 1 skinny little tree in the middle? It appears to be uphill and tight so, i guess I don't see the point in making the hole a luckshot by avoiding one little tree when you rope a good line. </font>

The 3-4 little trees right in the middle were cut.


#8A am tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image034.jpg



<font color="green"> blahzay...what does the pro tee look like? </font>
This is the definition of hourglass, a 20'W x 20'H fairway and green that is squeezed down to 8' about 30 feet in front of the basket. The Pro tee is back another 75' (250'). The Gold tee throws from outside the woods, into a narrow opening behind the Pro tee (350' double hourglass)


#8B pro tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image036.jpg



<font color="blue">I like this hole, how long is it to the pin? </font>
220'. Gold tee 260'.



I didn't mean for you guys to comment on my holes - I just wanted you opinion of wooded tunnel holes in general - and more examples like Timmy's!

my fault...i red your post wrong.

Just a post asking your preference? Do you like them or not?

Can't go high or around anything. Have to throw a nice tight and accurate disc, or you get kicked into the mess of trees on either side.




Sounds like 1/2 of Hornets Nest.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I have not seen it since '97 Worlds BUT at that point if you were evn 5' off fairway you had to "pitch out".. :eek:
There was NO WAY to advance the fairway... :o

I believe it had just recently been installed...so it was a little rough..ie, stumps in the fairways, little ones that would kick a good shot into the woods at times.. :mad:

It was a SWEET course though......only a couple holes were REALLY tight, BUT the fairways were "Defined"

:D

here's an example of one i like:

Hole 18 Idlewild: 651 ft

http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild18.jpg
http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild18a.jpg
http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild18b.jpg


(Burlington, KY - greater Cincinnati area)

Just a post asking your preference? Do you like them or not?

Can't go high or around anything. Have to throw a nice tight and accurate disc, or you get kicked into the mess of trees on either side.

Here are some examples...
#3 pro tee (most of the small 3"D trees have been cut)
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Tee%20Pictures_files/image010.jpg
#8A am tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image034.jpg
#8B pro tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image036.jpg
#8B am tee (you can see the Discatcher top band behind the tree in the middle)
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image038.jpg
#8C am tee
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image042.jpg



The 1st is ok if it isn't over 250

2nd looks fine as long as the basket isn't like back in a bush.

I don't see the basket on the 3rd but the line is ok

4th is ok

5th is good

BTW we have tighter holes in TX. Those aren't that tight at all.

Monster blacks #1 (http://www.hereandthere.com/DiscGolf_New/Michigan/HudsonMillsMonster/hole1.htm) is one of the best starting holes in disc golf. There is a 8-10' wide fairway all the way to basket after the initial gap.

If you want tight, here you go: Start here (http://www.local101dg.com/Cass-hole9.htm) and check out the next 4 holes. Cass Benton.

How tight is too tight? I love the holes I'm looking at here for the most part. Sometimes however, a botched attempt to imitate some of these more famous sig holes along with an egotistical will to somehow make them even tighter and tougher has resulted in more than a few stupid holes around the country. I don't mean to pick on my favorite course, but #2 at Robert Morris in Kzoo, MI is a good example. It has the makings of a great tunnel shot as it is situated through a row of large planted pine trees and there is about a 35 degree downward slope from left to right. The problem is there is one slanted, rogue maple tree right in the middle of the tight lane. Too many great shots get trumped by that tree, resulting in almost as many off line shots getting lucky and ending up for a putt as there are on line shots getting there.

To determine whether a hole is too tight, we've proposed calculating the hole's Whacur Factor. Assuming the hole is reachable with a good shot by players of the skill level a hole is designed for, the average tee shot should reach at least 2/3 the length of the hole at minimum.

For example, let's say the hole is 240 feet for Blue level (950 avg rating) players. Have 10-20 players averaging 950 make 5-10 tee shots so you measure at least 100 throws. Measure the length to the pin for these 100-200 throws. The average length to the pin should be less than 80 feet if the hole is fair. If the length is longer than that, the hole is probably too tight for that skill level.

The idea is that if players can't average throwing at least 2/3 the length of the hole, it's not much better than just planting a tee and pin at random in the woods. In other words, the hole hasn't really been "designed" just planted.

I wish Jerry Powers could get some pic's of his tight fairways in Tyler Texas on this thread. There is not many of these TUNNEL shots on the course, but they are strategically placed and can really make or break agood round. Out of his 36 holes , I think there are about 6-8 of these shots. They are a boat load of fun to play!

How about using skill level of the players designing the hole?

As we walk around the woods looking for additional holes, we throw these "fairways" before they become reality. I don't go by the 2/3 length rule (because of the 4 holes I posted, the lengths are only 178', 240' 200', and 230' from the long tee (which would be a BLUE tee in Chuck's book)), but we do look to see if we can make a "good" throw at least 1/2 of the time. GOOD is usually define simply by not shanking the first 50' or so worth of fairway guardian trees. I'd say our ratings vary from 875-925, most aren't PDGA members, but I can scale off my 910 rating.

Do other clubs do this as well? Just chuck some discs around in the woods and see if the hole is a possibility or not? I'd say we're not trying to imitate other holes specifically, no one really does that. These signature holes on other courses nearly provide ideas. Your own course is about using what is available, imitating ideas of the great holes you have played, see, or heard of.

You ask what a good hole is and I provided a proposed way to measure it. To my knowledge, no one has formally done this Whacur test on a hole including myself. However, experienced designers and keen observers could probably determine whether a hole is too tight based on this concept by watching throws from a variety of players. More than half of the tee shots making it most of the length of the fairway should be more than satisfactory assuming the other half are making it maybe halfway down the fairway and not all whacking and stopping within 20 feet of the tee.

You ask what a good hole is and I provided a proposed way to measure it.



Did you think I was being negative? Not at all, don't think I was disagreeing or anything. I was just asking about an alternate way of "measuring" the likelihood of a proposed hole being reasonable - % of good throws among a group, versus % of discs thrown 2/3 length. I suppose it's a horse apiece.

Either way, accuracy is tough, personally I like to challenge it and reward it.

I understand. I didn't think you were being negative. I was just pointing out a potential way to measure whether holes were too tight/unfair. But until someone actually does the testing, it's academic. Designers can easily fall back on the time worn comment that "we all have to play the same hole" when defending their corridor.

The hole with the lowest Whacur Factor at Hyzer Creek is this one. The WF is 0.125

http://www.hyzercreek.com/11t.jpg

those holes aren't tight...

in NC those would be open holes :)

those holes aren't tight...

in NC those would be open holes :)



Agreed. Heck those are the types of holes that i am used to playing.

Nonsense. I can't find a listing for any course in NC with a Whacur factor under 0.235

The hole with the lowest Whacur Factor at Hyzer Creek is this one. The WF is 0.125



Maybe that's why some of your customers don't think it's worth paying $5 to play... :p

The hole with the lowest Whacur Factor at Hyzer Creek is this one. The WF is 0.125

http://www.hyzercreek.com/11t.jpg



I don't really know WTF the Wacur factor is but that hole looks easy. Like a hole that you would 2 80% of the time.

dont know either but I would imagine tree whacking?

It ain't easy baby, the trees along the side of that fairway get whacked so often I never have to chop firewood.

I find that keeping the Whacur Factor under 0.3 helps keep the home fires burning.

It ain't easy baby, the trees along the side of that fairway get whacked so often I never have to chop firewood.

I find that keeping the Whacur Factor under 0.3 helps keep the home fires burning.



Of course it isn't easy for people who have been playing for two weeks. From what I see it is a Wizard all the way.

Chuck,

I'm not sure I can see why you'd need a WF. It seems that the SSA of a hole would give you enough information based on distance. A 200 foot hole with an SSA of 3.5 has problems.

The SSA of the hole and its length wouldn't provide enough information because an "unfair" corridor can provide good scoring distribution and SSA values. Placing a tee and pin about 200 feet apart anywhere in the woods could produce a fine scoring distribution but it wouldn't be a "hole" that was truly designed.

I'm not sure there's a problem with an SSA 3.5 hole even on a Gold course if the spread is good. If it's a Blue level design the scoring average for that level would be 3.8-3.9 with an SSA of 3.5.

In order to determine the Whacur factor you need some sort of sound recording device to measure the amplitude

The SSA of the hole and its length wouldn't provide enough information because an "unfair" corridor can provide good scoring distribution and SSA values. Placing a tee and pin about 200 feet apart anywhere in the woods could produce a fine scoring distribution but it wouldn't be a "hole" that was truly designed.

I'm not sure there's a problem with an SSA 3.5 hole even on a Gold course if the spread is good. If it's a Blue level design the scoring average for that level would be 3.8-3.9 with an SSA of 3.5.



Perhaps I'm being dense, but again, why do you need a WF? A random basket and Tee in the woods might also yeild a great WF. I think the notion of a well designed hole is great but I've seen enough poorly designed holes to know that "design" isn't a guarantee. Is your notion to put together enough tools, SSA, WF, Senic Factor etc. to ensure that any hole is a great hole? Perhaps it is in my understanding of unfair? How would you define "unfair?"

The way you modified my first comment still seems sufficient, essentially, a good SSA with a proper spread defines a great hole, no matter how that hole comes together; even if it is simply a basket and a Tee in the woods.

BTW - I know that Lowe, yourself and others have discussed this ad nauseam :Dbut the one thing that seems to be missing is a simple formula to define a hole. Simple is key, any player no matter how dumb (i.e. myself) should be able to look at and understand the definition.

How would you define "unfair?"



If players of the "skill level the hole is intended for" [(SLTHIIF)<-new acronym] cannot execute the rquired tee shot with at least 2/3 "success" then it's likely the hole is either unfair or too tough for their skill level.

Here's a good example, we've all seen windmill holes on miniature golf courses. That's a challenge that can be overcome because it's a repetitive pattern that can be handled with proper shot timing.

However, let's consider the fairway airway that has a branch sticking out across it and there's a breeze causing it to bob up and down randomly. Of course, it's fall and the leaves are down so you can't even see it. How many times have you thrown what appears to be a perfect shot down the intended fairway, only to see your disc careen off into the woods?

That's unfair because even if you can see the branch. The random bobbing can't even be accounted for to time your throw like the windmill. In the case of fairways with 3 or 4 trees spaced 8 feet apart making three "routes," it can be unfair if the gaps aren't wide enough for the SLTHIIF.

In the case of OB on a reachable hole, if more than 1/3 of the players throw OB, the hole is unfair for that skill level. We're drifting off of tunnel holes here but the concepts are similar. It doesn't make sense that a hole should penalize more than 1/3 of the players throwing it because the hole is supposed to be "playable" if it's designed for those players. That's the nature of design, making playable holes to challenge a specific skill set of players.

I'm not sure there can be a simple way to visibly tell if a hole is great. There are obvious ways to tell if a hole is bad, typically due to safety issues that are immediately visible like paths, roads, shelters or playgrounds too close. I submit that until ratings adjusted scoring data on a hole is known, a hole can never actually be confirmed as great no matter how awesome it looks.

How would you define "unfair?"



I would define unfair as a hole that does not reward a good shot consistently.

I would define a good shot as one that is thrown within .6 degrees of the desired line (within 3' at 300') with correct speed and height.

If the desired line is too tight or fluky for a consistent player to get a good result from nearly perfectly thrown discs on multiple attempts, it is a lucky hole.

Designing holes to a players rating is a fine concept. But it has it's flaws because those ratings are defined as an average. So, by relying on judging holes designed for player ratings on how fair or unfair they are (or even less scientific, how "good" they are) is just a crapshoot. My rating is 910, and range is 952-868 (or something close). The range is much more indicative of how well I will play a hole designed for a 910 player rating (is that a WHITE hole?). If a fair hole was defined as a player (or group) being able to average "good" throws of 2/3 the length of the fairway, that's actually like playing a hole designed below your rating. My 910 average means that half the scores are above and half are below, so only half of my throws on a hole designed for someone rated 910 would be "good". In order for 2/3 of my throws to be good, wouldn't I have to be playing a hole designed for a lower rating??

Anyway, numbers cannot define how "good" a hole is. There are too many variables that always come into play which is exactly why every course gets a new average (and subsequently different player ratings) for every single individual round played on it. If variables, weather, fatigue, fluke, etc did not matter each course would have one and only one scoring average. And good is subjective - statistics and subjectiveness clash (even when utilizing standard deviations, eliminating outliers, and weighting numbers to account for variances).

I think any hole is good as long as it has a route - even if it's more likely that the planets will align, than me throwing the route, it's still a good hole as long as the thrower can see the route, make a decision which disc to throw and how to throw it, and focus on throwing the best possible shot. Tougher holes just make you try harder. Tunnel holes are just like landing zones on 90 degree bend fairways - you need to throw the right shot, right angle, right power, etc to hit the intended target area - makes no difference if that target area is a "window" through some trees, or a clearing on the ground.

It's a cop out to discard the math because it's too much work. Every course gets a new data point for SSA when it's played but it's not like the number jumps around a lot. There are courses where the SSA has been within 0.1 for the whole course five years in a row at the same event. Even a course where the SSA changes by 1.8 from say 54 to 55.8 between two rounds with the same players is only a 3% variance. That's also less than 0.1 average SSA change on each hole. You don't need a group of ten 900-rated players to generate the scores on a hole designed for white level. A group of players from 850-950 averaging near 900 works fine. The math adjusts their scores as needed.

People who think they can just find a route to make a "good" hole diminishes the actual skill and experience required to design better courses and leads Park Depts to believe that any local player can design their course. Know anyone building a ball golf course that would just find a local low handicapper to design their facility?

Know anyone building a ball golf course that would just find a local low handicapper to design their facility?



I would if the investment in building one was less than $25K.

Even a ball golf course with a ridiculous cost of $25K would have liability issues much bigger than $25K leading one to still consider an experienced designer a good investment.

You didn't ask if it would be a good idea.

You just asked if it would happen. :cool:

I didn't say it was too much work (did you notice my occupation - Laplace transforms and Fourier Series?). I said it's only a number, that doesn't take into account intangible variables like the will to thread the needle or immaculate recoveries, tree love, etc. Use it at face value, nothing more. I love manipulating numbers and creating mathematical models of the real world as much as anyone (okay I suppose it's not the norm to be like this). But they're just statistical models, not like deriving a physical law like gravitational attraction, ohms law, etc.

How would you define "unfair?"



I would define unfair as a hole that does not reward a good shot consistently.

I would define a good shot as one that is thrown within .6 degrees of the desired line (within 3' at 300') with correct speed and height.



Wow!! Am I reading you correctly here? You are saying that this hypothecial hole is fair:

450' hole. Line of tree 300' away all very tightly spaced except for a 4' gap that is 6' high. (4' is 3' plus a generous disc width). If you miss the gap you will do well to pitch through the gap (would normally take 2 shots) and then throw an approach for your 4.

Bottom line, I think 4x that kind of error is world class: hitting a 12' gap at 300'. See the discussions about the USDGC clown's mouth.

Numbers don't drive design, they support it. A pretty girl may only be skin deep or may have substance. You have to spend some time to find out.

(or I could be clever and say you have to check into the figures but I'll leave that for the punsters in the group /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

leave it to Chuck to throw us a curve ball :eek: :D

People who think they can just find a route to make a "good" hole diminishes the actual skill and experience required to design better courses and leads Park Depts to believe that any local player can design their course. Know anyone building a ball golf course that would just find a local low handicapper to design their facility?



C'mon Chuck, give newbies more credit too. Everyone has to start from somewhere - usually the bottom. You started somewhere too. And none of this post is a personal attack on your statistics or designing.

This is back along the "Best Course Designer" topic - I still believe that yes, anyone with experience discin and intimate knowledge of the land, and the desire can design a great course. You throw unlimited time and funds into the course and my kids could create something great. Everyone can always find a better way and find things to fix, but that is not the point. Rather than pointing out a wooded tunnel hole that is too tight, rise to the occasion and thread that needle.

This is good, it's where I wanted to thread to go, see what people really see tough holes as - poor design, or a challenge to overcome. I believe not a single course designer says "gee, here's a row of pines, I suppose we could just stick a hole in here" they say "sweet, that's gonna be a very tough throw that will make you feel like a million bucks if you nail it".

I'll give more credit to an inexperienced designer who seeks help and checks their numbers with the design information now available than to an experienced designer who thinks they know good design but refuses to back it up with numbers or doesn't believe they might be able to improve their course by gathering more information.

When I started with my first design project in 1989, I hadn't even played more than a month. However, I traveled around the midwest visiting 30 courses and meeting with designers like Gary Lewis and Duster Hoffman to learn. And I learned directly from Steady Ed who helped tweak the design when he visited after Worlds in Iowa.

I was frustrated that there were few guidelines and information available on design at the time. So, my quest since then has been to develop the kind of professional underpinnings that are found in ball golf course design. Fast forward to the late 90s when the concept of ratings came along. Little do many realize that I was much more excited about the potential to produce course ratings than player ratings, but player ratings were needed to get course ratings (and vice versa). And here we are today but apparently still in the tunnel... :)

How would you define "unfair?"



I would define unfair as a hole that does not reward a good shot consistently.

I would define a good shot as one that is thrown within .6 degrees of the desired line (within 3' at 300') with correct speed and height.



Wow!! Am I reading you correctly here? You are saying that this hypothecial hole is fair:

450' hole. Line of tree 300' away all very tightly spaced except for a 4' gap that is 6' high. (4' is 3' plus a generous disc width). If you miss the gap you will do well to pitch through the gap (would normally take 2 shots) and then throw an approach for your 4.

Bottom line, I think 4x that kind of error is world class: hitting a 12' gap at 300'. See the discussions about the USDGC clown's mouth.



No, I am saying that if you can throw 10 good shots (see above) down the "line" all 10 of those shots should end up in the same place. I would also say that very few golfers are capable of throwing 10 of 10 shots down the same line. But if they were able to, all of the shots should be good.

I am saying that missing your line by less than 1 degree on many wooded courses is enough to make the difference between being parked and being deflected deep into the shule.

http://www.centxdglove.com/gallery/albums/westpark/normal_westpark14a.jpg

This is one of the greatest tunnel shots ever!! It has a high element of danger with the trees on the left and the open windows leading to the o.b. parking garage on the right!! I play this hole almost everyday and if you know the local route aces can come easy. Turning a back hand over produces an amazing shot that will ride the wall right to the basket at the end of the trees on the left!

Although the concept of the hole is very cool, how can you possibly play it with the risk of whacking cars in the lot, or is it abandoned? The option to throw "wall rollers" can be cool where it works. Sometimes chainlink fences can work that way as long as the pipes are on the other side of the mesh.

http://www.centxdglove.com/gallery/albums/westpark/normal_westpark14a.jpg





Definitely a cool hole! I'd hope there were no cars in that garage either, I can't believe any department would allow a hole there if there were cars (or maybe a chain link on the windows that we just can't see). What I imagine is a backhand with a whole lot of turn that skips off the wall over and over again during its flight to make it down the fairway.

But that hole wouldn't fit my definition of tunnel. More like an "alley" because you can go sky high with a tomahawk on it. I look at tunnels as ones where you can't to up and over. I also see a route to the left for a sidearm or lefty, so it's not a mando-alley shot either.

I would throw a backhand roller on that hole and, assuming I clear the initial two trees, would take the garage & trees completely out of play. This hole would never be a tunnel shot for me.

http://www.centxdglove.com/gallery/albums/westpark/normal_westpark14a.jpg

This is one of the greatest tunnel shots ever!! It has a high element of danger with the trees on the left and the open windows leading to the o.b. parking garage on the right!! I play this hole almost everyday and if you know the local route aces can come easy. Turning a back hand over produces an amazing shot that will ride the wall right to the basket at the end of the trees on the left!



I played night golf there last year with Robbie bratten and we had one disc apiece. I hit the basket on that hole! :D

Next year 18 holes go in. Please comment on these three if you care. They're a little off the spirit of "tunnel vision" theme, but you can't go high, and if you go wide there is a creek and steep tree lined hills.

#15
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image014.jpg

#16
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image018.jpg

#17
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image022.jpg
(alternate paths to the left and right will also be cleared)

Holes are not complete, but you get the idea with the photoshop basket. Small trees, limbs, brush, and dead stuff will be cleared.

How about curved routes instead of basically straight routes? Maybe a hole with left and right routes but no middle route other than a peek-a-boo sight line to spot the basket?

[QUOTE]
http://www.centxdglove.com/gallery/albums/westpark/normal_westpark14a.jpg



These windows are wide open and there are cars parked inside this garage all the time!! That's what makes it fun!! :D:D

As for riding the wall, the disc will usually tap off the wall twice before reaching the end of the garage on a back hand, but that all depends on how early you started the shot along the wall. If you start it too early it will hit the wall three or four times but may fade left into the trees and not reach the end. If you start it too late it will hit the wall once and rise up and go on top b/c of the spin created from the deflection. It's such a great shot! :D

How about curved routes instead of basically straight routes? Maybe a hole with left and right routes but no middle route other than a peek-a-boo sight line to spot the basket?



Our blue tees do that on 3 of the six wooded holes (peak at the basket while playing a longer hyzer or anhyzer into the narrow part of the straight fairay). 4 of six also have multiple routes beside straight that aren't easy to see in the pix.

Next year 18 holes go in. Please comment on these three if you care. They're a little off the spirit of "tunnel vision" theme, but you can't go high, and if you go wide there is a creek and steep tree lined hills.

#15
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image014.jpg

#16
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image018.jpg

#17
http://webpages.charter.net/berrybunch/Other%20Pictures_files/image022.jpg
(alternate paths to the left and right will also be cleared)

Holes are not complete, but you get the idea with the photoshop basket. Small trees, limbs, brush, and dead stuff will be cleared.



The last two remind me of some MSDGC holes but more open.

Chuck, actually I mispoke and didn't read your comment carefully. The 4 initial holes I posted have a middle route and some outside routes to play a bit more of a curve if you dare. One of them has an offset blue tee that forces you to play a curve and almost layup into the straight part of the fairway before coming too far back around. All have unmarked gold tees that add a whole new element to the hole. None of the 3 recent holes I posted have "no middle" route right now. They have alternate routes. The no middle is a fantastic idea for #17 that needs the most work from the blue tee, and just happens that the flatest spot for a blue tee would lend to a left or right route, but nothing up the middle. Thanks! One more piece of variety, I think going that way will yield a much better design than originally planned.

[QUOTE]
http://www.centxdglove.com/gallery/albums/westpark/normal_westpark14a.jpg



These windows are wide open and there are cars parked inside this garage all the time!! That's what makes it fun!! :D:D

As for riding the wall, the disc will usually tap off the wall twice before reaching the end of the garage on a back hand, but that all depends on how early you started the shot along the wall. If you start it too early it will hit the wall three or four times but may fade left into the trees and not reach the end. If you start it too late it will hit the wall once and rise up and go on top b/c of the spin created from the deflection. It's such a great shot! :D



looks like it would be even more fun if you played the end of the wall as a Mando :eek: or had a special rule that touching the wall meant a penalty and a resulting lie within 1 meter of where the initial contact w/ wall occurred :eek: :p
(that way you could put chicken wire or screening over the "windows") :D

Here are some pictures of the brand new (again) course at Brown Deer Park in Milwaukee, WI. Hole #1 starts us off right with a long narrow tunnel shot.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/evilmousse/sets/72157594393664328/detail/

Many of these fit our discussions on wooded tunnel holes. The course is absolutely awesome and can be devastatingly brutal. Did I mention that it will be a marquee course for the 2007 AM WORLDS? Oh yes - here it comes!

Chuck, got any better pictures of The Bear for PRO WORLDS? (better than than the collage on hhsc site?)

The Bear is being bulldozed right now. We may take some winter pix if we get the chance. But more likely will wait until spring.

Brown Deer course - you guys need some more wooded holes :D:D

Good stuff, keep up the hard work!

Brown Deer - Initial Data...
http://pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6336&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Open

Check out the TOUGHNESS! Average 991 rating for shooting +7 on the day!!!!!! Granted there was snow and cold temps, but it's pretty indicative. I just hope they don't save this for the semis or finals. This needs to be one of the main attraction courses. This will truly weed out the best of the best and crown a true World Champion.

Chuck, what do you mean the Bear is being bulldozed?! Isn't that blasphemous to bulldoze a wooded course??

Courses are being built all over using bulldozers in the process whether in the open or thru the woods on both public and private land. There's nothing particularly damaging doing it with bulldozers, plus it's certainly faster and it's safer than hand clearing. The PDGA International center fariways have been cleared with a combination massive timber equipment along with hand clearing in more sensitive areas along with using a bobcat for downed brush removal. Not every wooded site has natural corridors nor has them in the right places suitable for DG and taking over existing trails for fairways can be unsafe depending on the park pedestrian traffic patterns.

Bulldozing certainly produces better fairway routes and a safer more enjoyable experience for golfers by eliminating tripping hazards with the "bungee stake" stubs left by hand clearing. In addition, the fairways in the case of Highbridge are seeded with nice grass which later reduces ground compaction from foot traffic. John is a former timberman and uses all of the trees in some economic fashion such as birch limbs (company buys them for Christmas wreaths), firewood, pulpwood, building timbers for cabins, and cutting logs into quality hardwood planks for construction. And, it is his land.

I cleared hole 12 at Hyzer Creek with a 1968 Timberjack skidder and a triaxle logging truck with a picker. Yeah, during the process I probably killed 25 snakes, 100 mice and voles, hundreds of toads and frogs, all sorts of precious flowering plants, shelf fungus, birds nests, flying squirrel nests, maybe even some higher mammals, but isn't killing small life forms what disc golf is all about?

Now hole 6 at Kinston is a TTighTT wooded hole .. http://www.kinstondiscgolf.com/course.html

I can barely get my shoulders thru this hole for the entire length of the fairway, it is also known as the Deer trail.

Now hole 6 at Kinston is a TTighTT wooded hole .. http://www.kinstondiscgolf.com/course.html



Very nice.

Hey, do you know/have the software that was used to create the tee sign graphics for the hole pictures?

Now hole 6 at Kinston is a TTighTT wooded hole .. http://www.kinstondiscgolf.com/course.html




I can barely get my shoulders thru this hole for the entire length of the fairway, it is also known as the Deer trail.



There is discussion about this hole, including design philosophy from Harold Duvall, here: Ratio of fairway width to fairway length (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Course%20Design%20&%20Installation&Number=530486&Searchpage=0&Main=529367&Search=true&#Post530486)

http://www.msnusers.com/paigepatterson@msn.com/Documents/Pictures%2Fmy%20course%20001.jpg

Here's one from my private course in the northwoods of Wisconsin. It's longer than it looks, and only about 5-6 feet wide! Really tough to duce, always have HUGE white pine in the way of a putt. :D

Now hole 6 at Kinston is a TTighTT wooded hole .. http://www.kinstondiscgolf.com/course.html



Very nice.

Hey, do you know/have the software that was used to create the tee sign graphics for the hole pictures?

that would be a question for Joe Noble aka Joe Shamrock