"NAGS" Zone

[Frank Delicious]

Ball golf and disc golf are quite different when it comes to scoring.

[jubuttib]

Yep, everything in golf is harder, especially short game.

[Star Shark]

Yet another area where DGer's get spoiled. We expect birdies. A ball golf tourney the winner is typically between +5 and -10 overall. In DG it's more like -30 to -50. Hell, Feldberg came into the final hole at his world title at -100. I think it's partially because most courses are still par 3 courses where one can get in 2 range off the tee on most holes.

[money 21]

i see this scoring as bad for the sport. if most par 3 are expect birdies then the should be par 2. if birdie is the norm on a hole then the hole is to easy.

[jubuttib]

Yet another area where DGer's get spoiled. We expect birdies. A ball golf tourney the winner is typically between +5 and -10 overall.

The guys in the top 20 (aka the usual suspects) score an average of -2 or better through the whole year, which gives you a -8 for their average tournament score. Average play doesn't give you victory. The stats say that in 2011, the average winner on the PGA Tour scored around -14 overall, best being -24 and worst being -3. There were 8 tournaments where the winner scored less than 10 under par, and 6 where the winner scored 20 or more under par.

Majors are usually the ones where the scores stay low, on your average tourney where the courses and especially greens aren't made quite as difficult the scores get very low even in golf. Disc golf does still take the cake though.

[jubuttib]

i see this scoring as bad for the sport. if most par 3 are expect birdies then the should be par 2. if birdie is the norm on a hole then the hole is to easy.

Maybe, but I just don't like the idea of a birdie requiring a hole in one. Besides, it's the total throws that counts anyway.

[Star Shark]

i see this scoring as bad for the sport. if most par 3 are expect birdies then the should be par 2. if birdie is the norm on a hole then the hole is to easy.

Maybe, but I just don't like the idea of a birdie requiring a hole in one. Besides, it's the total throws that counts anyway.

Most courses were designed in a day when the Viper and Stingray were the long range drivers. Discs have evolved and so has the players' game in general. Technique has gotten tons better by just about everyone in the last decade or so. Because of this, modern players are lighting up the oldschool courses like they were miniature golf.

[curt]

[quote]i see this scoring as bad for the sport. if most par 3 are expect birdies then the should be par 2. if birdie is the norm on a hole then the hole is to easy.[quote]

Yeah, the real point of this statement is more that most courses are poorly designed for today's game, not really advocating for par 2s on golf courses. Houck's overall point is that there shouldn't be holes on a golf course, where when you execute well there are mindless shots on any hole. Those just aren't that much fun. After living in Austin for a few years and playing several of Houck's courses, his design mindset is very obvious, and it becomes very clear that is right. Playing a course where you have to think on every single shot is very difficult after playing so many courses that aren't like that, but it is SO much more fun and rewarding.

[Frank Delicious]

Ball golf went through the same growing pains as technology started outpacing courses and has been slowly catching up as course designers started moving tees back, making the landing zone for drivers tighter and tighter and making greens faster and more difficult. The main way ball golf courses make their scoring tougher is the greens though. They make them very firm and very fast, cutting the grass lower than ever before. Every Masters when they interview players, they comment on how fast and tough the greens are. Disc golf doesn't really have the same option of making greens harder like that so what we can do is not make upshots on holes gimmies and make it take two tough shots to get that 10' putt.

[Chuck Kennedy]

There's an interesting dynamic between shooting way under and NAGS. You're likely to get one or the other depending on what level a course is designed for. In most cases, the longest public courses are and should be designed for blue level (under 975 rating) since very few players have skill above that level. A well designed blue level course would not have NAGS holes for blue players. When tournaments are held, unless the course can be tricked out with a temporary gold or super gold layout, the top players are going to torch the course shooting way under like Feldy's -100 at PW2008.

On the other hand, if a course is designed for gold level for daily play, there will be NAGS on many holes for the majority of players who are blue and lower level where they can only get within 70-125 feet. That's one argument for not building public and even private gold level courses unless you also have a shorter set of tees for blue or white level. Even top tier tournaments on gold courses will produce winners who shoot quite a bit under par because these "super gold" level players are a half step better than the gold level design parameters in the course. Houck and I have our super gold design parameters that we pull out when doing designs for final 9s at NTs and Worlds when asked to prepare those layouts. But that's one of the few times you're likely to see the super gold players not shoot as much under par.

[Pwingles]

@ chuck

What is your approach if any, to balancing gold level courses when designing them? For example are you actively making sure holes that finish righ left and center are somewhat equal? Same with distances on holes? I realize in some cases its gonna be detrimental to be too picky about it or maybe the course just doesnt offer that many options, but what steps if any do you take to try and make sure the course doesnt cater to one skillset more than another?

[Kscustom]

I play a course in black Forrest just outside Colorado springs, co. Very wooded and most holes had landing areas and fairways but one hole think 14ish had multiple fairways off the tee then at about 300 you had no real shot. No roller no overhand, flick or backhand. The last 100 feet was throw it up and pray it makes it past the trees. NAGS. As far as I can remembers that's the only one

[Chuck Kennedy]

When doing the first design draft, I don't specifically pay attention to L-R-C shot balance. I'm more interested in overall routing and incorporating certain areas as well as possible. I naturally shift from thinking par 3, 4 or 5 as the next hole as I'm walking thru and planning. Certain areas lend themself to more than one routing from the standpoint that I can put a 3-hole loop in this area with two par 3s and one par 4 that could be routed left or right and the first hole could be the par 4 or the last hole a par 4. So in later drafts when I look more closely at shot balance, there might be one routing for the that 3-hole loop that makes more sense for balancing the overall L-R-C aspect of a course.

Something that also needs to be considered is that overall L-R-C balance doesn't necessarily mean equal lefts, right and center (straight) shots. I have a course called Lakewood Hills in the Twin Cities that is nicknamed Leftywood Hills due to the number of turns to the right. However, as lefties will tell you, just because a hole curves right, it doesn't mean it favors lefties. You'll find that many times a right turning hole actually favors RHBH turnover rather than a LHBH hyzer or RHFH curve. Just pointing that just going thru a course and totaling all of the left, right and straight shots might not tell you the "hole" story without looking closer at how those turns are done.

[Frank Delicious]

We have a course around here that was designed with the idea of 6 lefty holes (right turning), 6 neutral holes, and 6 rightly holes (left turning) in mind and it is a pretty average course. Some of the holes seem forced and the land could have been used better if the designers hadn't worried so much about making a "balanced" course.

[zj1002]

That is a pretty limited mentality when designing a course. The course has no chance. Design the course with what the land gives you and make holes that reward good shots rather than luck. If you get pissed because the hole favors a FH or lefty shot then go learn those throws.