"NAGS" Zone

[inthedrift]

hmmm......i would imagine it might

[inthedrift]

FWIW I really enjoyed the article myself. My experience has been the same as Frank's as far as players' preferences for certain types of holes. I know that I don't really enjoy holes that seem to always result in a "NAGS" being thrown. It makes the game much more interesting to have as many scoring opportunities on the course as possible.

[curt]

I can see the validity in this argument. I guess this time I do need to be a 990 rated player to understand this logic.

You don't really need to be a 990 rated player to understand the argument, just the distances he uses. For example, let's say you're max throw is 300', but you don't really hit a putt outside of 25' feet. Let's also assume that you can put the disc within 10 feet of the basket from 50 feet every time. In this scenario, a 350 foot drive is going to result in a NAGS. You're gonna 3 that hole every time because you're gonna drive about 300 feet and not have a chance to put it in and you won't mess up the upshot either.

[garublador]

i guess i misunderstood i looked at having the easy upshot as the reward for the good drive. most of the courses i play are very wooded so get the open upshot is how you can score with out getting a birdie.

The other thing is that an easy upshot isn't nearly as good of a reward as an easy putt. I haven't read the article, but one issue I have with NAGS is that the reward for getting into that zone is pretty weak because you get two chances to make up for an error: the upshot and the putt. If you took the NAGS out of the hole then your only chance to redeem yourself is the putt. In other words, having a NAGS makes the shot before the NAGS easier because there's more margin of error before it costs you a stroke. With a NAGS the difference between a really good drive and an OK drive is almost nothing if you have any sort of approach game. Without the NAGS the difference between a really good drive and an OK drive is you having an 90%+ chance of making a putt and a <50% chance of making a putt.

[himynameismatt]

FWIW I really enjoyed the article myself. My experience has been the same as Frank's as far as players' preferences for certain types of holes. I know that I don't really enjoy holes that seem to always result in a "NAGS" being thrown. It makes the game much more interesting to have as many scoring opportunities on the course as possible.

That's the main idea behind eliminating "NAGS" right there. To create more scoring opportunities whether positive or negative, rather than a stagnant holes where Par is a virtual certainty.

[money 21]

i guess i misunderstood i looked at having the easy upshot as the reward for the good drive. most of the courses i play are very wooded so get the open upshot is how you can score with out getting a birdie.

The other thing is that an easy upshot isn't nearly as good of a reward as an easy putt. I haven't read the article, but one issue I have with NAGS is that the reward for getting into that zone is pretty weak because you get two chances to make up for an error: the upshot and the putt. If you took the NAGS out of the hole then your only chance to redeem yourself is the putt. In other words, having a NAGS makes the shot before the NAGS easier because there's more margin of error before it costs you a stroke. With a NAGS the difference between a really good drive and an OK drive is almost nothing if you have any sort of approach game. Without the NAGS the difference between a really good drive and an OK drive is you having an 90%+ chance of making a putt and a <50% chance of making a putt.

this rewards good drivers which is fine but sucks for me. driving is the weakest part of my game. i am great at upshot and a solid putter but i don't have great distance. how i keep up with or bet players with a longer distance is by making drives that leave me easy upshot or putts. With that said wide open hole ar lame. some of the local course around here call for very technical drves and if you hit it you a left with a NAGS, but you have to make a great shot to get the nags.

[Frank Delicious]

Throwing a good drive shouldn't necessarily leave you an easy upshot on longer holes. It should leave you the opportunity to make a good upshot to the basket.

[garublador]

some of the local course around here call for very technical drves and if you hit it you a left with a NAGS, but you have to make a great shot to get the nags.

But what if you only make a "good" drive rather than a great one? Do you definitely lose a stroke or do you just have a more difficult upshot? If it's just a more difficult upshot then someone with a "good" drive has two chances to save a stroke, the upshot and the putt. If a "great" drive left you with an easy putt rather than an easy upshot then a "great" drive would mean there's a much better chance of you gaining a stroke. So being left with a NAGS isn't near as good of a reward as being left with an easy putt.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Good - great - NAGS has to do with the skill level the hole is designed for and players of that skill level playing it. A "great" drive on a par 3 hole designed for your level would be within say 20 feet of the pin. A "good" drive is maybe 40-60 feet away where you might get a birdie. If you have a lower skill level than the hole design, getting within 40-60 feet is probably a "great" drive not a "good" drive.

If you can only get within say 70-125 feet (NAGS) of a par 3 hole after one throw or a par 4 hole after two throws, either you're not at the skill level the hole was designed for or the hole was improperly designed too long for your skill level. So if you find yourself landing in the NAGS range, either you screwed up your shot(s) if the hole was at your level, the hole was designed too long, or you had a really good throw for a player at a level lower than the hole design.

[money 21]

some of the local course around here call for very technical drves and if you hit it you a left with a NAGS, but you have to make a great shot to get the nags.

But what if you only make a "good" drive rather than a great one? Do you definitely lose a stroke or do you just have a more difficult upshot? If it's just a more difficult upshot then someone with a "good" drive has two chances to save a stroke, the upshot and the putt. If a "great" drive left you with an easy putt rather than an easy upshot then a "great" drive would mean there's a much better chance of you gaining a stroke. So being left with a NAGS isn't near as good of a reward as being left with an easy putt.

Here is one senreo. the hole is 340 up with the pin being ruffly 25' higher then the tee. off the tee you have to pick a gap between several oak and pine trees. At the 225' mark from the tee the trees open up and you are pretty open to the pin. coming off the tee you have to stay low. a great drive leaves withe a 50'or less putt, a good drive leaves you in the 100' range needing to go around a tree or two pretty easy upshot. bad drive (unless you make an amazing upshot) is looking bogue at least. the hardest line off the tee to hit is the one that leads to birdie. This is how alot of northwest courrse are laid out.

I just see putting yourself in a position, if you can't get a birdie, to have as many NAGS in a round as you can as good course management. again though i am not 990 rated player either.

[garublador]

Here is one senreo. the hole is 340 up with the pin being ruffly 25' higher then the tee. off the tee you have to pick a gap between several oak and pine trees. At the 225' mark from the tee the trees open up and you are pretty open to the pin. coming off the tee you have to stay low. a great drive leaves withe a 50'or less putt, a good drive leaves you in the 100' range needing to go around a tree or two pretty easy upshot. bad drive (unless you make an amazing upshot) is looking bogue at least. the hardest line off the tee to hit is the one that leads to birdie. This is how alot of northwest courrse are laid out.

I just see putting yourself in a position, if you can't get a birdie, to have as many NAGS in a round as you can as good course management. again though i am not 990 rated player either.

Those holes sound like they're designed to force 2's on better players if they want to keep up rather than rewarding lucky shots for average players. If a bit of course management skills is all that's needed to get a 3 on every hole with one shot being a NAGS then the course isn't well suited (i.e. won't give a very good score distribution) to your skill level. In this case NAGS is a symptom rather than an actual problem.

Grandview Park here is like that for me. I don't have a shot at a 2 on quite a few holes, but I have a really good chance of a 3 with a NAGS. For better players they have to be nice and consistent to get 2 after 2 and the weaker players have to avoid bogies, but the OK players can easily get 3's on most holes just by leaving themselves a NAGS.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Doesn't sound like a very good hole from a length standpoint except maybe for Super Gold 1020+ players (par 3) or Rec players (par 4).

[Leopard]

AATCS

acronyms applied to common sense

[rehder]

Would it violate copyright laws if someone scanned the article into a pdf and distributed it on a message board for free?

Probably, most magazines write if its permissible or not to reprint stuff. (usually isnt)
Which is understandable, but the it would be nice if I could pay and buy a pdf to save on shipping costs

[money 21]

just reread the artical and think i understand it a little better but have a new question. When did getting a par become a bad thing? i played ball golf for years and was a A level player and par was good, birdie was great, eagle was f-cking awsome, and boogy was bad. the artical makes it seem like every hole should be birdie or die.

with that said the course they are designing looks amazing and i would love to play it. and yes i am one of the pestky technical guys.