Disc Golf in New England vs elsewhere

[Andrew Sleeth]

I'm about 18 months into disc golf and haven't even played a tournament...yet, so the following may just be misguided delusions. Last year I watched the Championships on the computer. I was in awe, first by drives and there distances, then by second shots landing under baskets, and most of all by putts looking easy from the 10m mark.

Now that I've played a little more I'm still impressed with the putting, no doubt. However thinking back about the championships, I remember seeing wide open tee shots (no real danger of releasing a bit early and netting a 50ft drive due to trees and then being buried in brush so thick you cant go over or around you just have to punch it through and hope you reach the fairway).

I did see roped off fairways that you had to land between or island greens marked off with haybails, adding difficulty and requiring controled placement.

I also just read HouckDesigns "What is a fairway?" and it described fairways of two and three trees. In doing so it mentioned the risk reward of how near/far the tee pads are from those trees, which I totally agreed with.

**A Point is coming**

I was mostly wondering:
What are the benefits and/or punishments for playing disc golf in New England compared to other parts of the country?
Does having thicker brush require us to improve our technical game moresoe than most, forcing us to work forhand/tomahawks more?
Does it limit roller opportunities?
Does it effect our confidence on drives better or for worse?

and several other things I may not be able to think of.

Again, these may be thoughts of an "adolescent" discgolfer mind, but would like to hear what others think.

[Brad Harris]

I think there it's better to compare courses rather than regions. There is enough variance from one course to the next that it's hard to characterize a region based on a certain type of course.

Certainly course designers in New England have a lot more weapons available (woods, water, elevation) than say the midwest where the terrain is more flat and open.

But in general, it's hard to characterize a region on one or two courses. In northern MA, we have Devens and Barre which are very different from each other. Devens is tight, wooded with tons of crazy elevation. Barre has the elevation but is much more open, is much longer, and has some water that comes into play.

I play a lot in the DC area as well and there is similar variation there.

All-in-all, I think we in New England benefit from the variety of courses available. Playing different courses gives you a chance to work on many different aspects of your game.

[Kenji Cline]

In a general sense I think us new englanders / North East players can carve some sick lines because most of our courses are more wooded than open. We may not have the bigger bombs (granted some do) But our courses force us to learn to shape lines and shape lines well. It's great to be able to hyzer flip a disc to go though that 6 ft gap 100 ft out and pull right around the large pine that's another 100ft past the gap to fade out back left to hit the perfect landing zone for a birdie putt.

[Dave McHale]

IMO the type of land most new england courses are built on definitely makes for more technical play. When all you have are open fields, why would you ever need a "fairway driver"? You'll see a lot more leopards and TL's in the bags of people who play golf that requires more placement than not.

When I went to flagstaff in 05 for am worlds players in my group were shaking in their boots about throwing from an open field tee to a 40' wide entry into the woods 150' away: total hole was about 325'. They were all throwing easy hyzers or tomahawks at the doorway so they could try and go up and down from there... I just laughed and threw one inside the circle without even blinking. I mean, up here 40' is RIDICULOUSLY wide if you play at any real "woods" course. When you get used to 6' gaps being the "big" part of the fairway 80' off the tee, and 20' fairways being "generous"... it's a whole different mindset.

Also... open golf is just BORING. Do you have the distance or not to reach the pin? If yes, did you execute it properly? If no, you're not that bad off and it's still either a long putt or at least a gimme up-and-down. If you shank a shot on a technical hole that requires power AND accuracy, you could be a mile off in the woods or best-case scenario still just a lot left of the hole to play if you dropped straight down in the fairway. Far more risk/reward than just "learn to throw far".

[Craig Cutler]

technical courses that make you hit gaps can good for the game (Cranbury), but there are a handful of new england course with too many trees in the middle of the fairways. Luck is too much invloved in the scoring on these courses. Great pure shots dead straight down the fairway clip these trees and kick the disc 100 feet off into the schule. While dirty poorly throw shots luckily miss trees and get up for putts.

I am a big believer that properly designed courses breed better players.

[Matt Stroika]

Good point Dave and Craig.

[Troy Dietrich]

Also, if you want really be wowed by the pros and put the play of some of those that you watched in the U.S. Disc Golf Championship into perspective. You should drive down this summer and play a round or two at Maple Hill, and then come back in September and watch them play that course at the Vibram Open.

BTW...Nikko came in 2nd last year in at the USDGC, and won at the Vibram. So he appears to play both technical and open courses equally well.

[Mike Dussault]

USDGC course, Winthrop Gold, is a technical course disguised as a wide open course.

We do lack the roller option in general in the NE. Unless it a short flick roller to get out of trouble.

[Andrew Sleeth]

Troy good counter with the Nikko example.

I dont know enough about whom is from where, but guys that travel "the circuit" what percent are from NE and is that number possibly lower based on logistics, more tournaments in the south?

How do those NE circuit guys generally do? Are they just average placements, disproving my initial conjecture, or do ten guys finish in the top 25, time and time again, putting some truth to it?

[Brad Harris]

In considering what region produces better disc golfers, there's another factor to consider: weather.

Players in southern states get more time to hone their game in comfortable weather while we in New England are forced to adapt to playing in the cold and snow (or go into hibernation) every winter.

[Kevin Silvia]

I love it when my brother visits from San Diego in December, and he has to figure out how to throw with a coat on.

[Eric Kevorkian]

The weather comment is a very interesting topic.

Some people say that the winter hinders our overal performance, while others say there are benefits too it.

Personally I think it's both...I think we would all be better off if we had good golf weather all year long, however playing in the winter certainly has it's benefits to our games. For me, i've learned a lot in terms of body mechanics and disc selection when being forced to do a "standstill" tee shot or approach shot, or even just having to do a soft runup. It certainly comes into my mind when I find myself in precarious spots on the course.

A bit off-topic, sorry. Carry on.

[Matt Stroika]

Maine's own Nick Gagne is tearing it up at the Minnesota Majestic. First round 10 down five strokes off of first place.

Go Nick!

[Matt Stroika]

Maine's own Nick Gagne is tearing it up at the Minnesota Majestic. First round 10 down five strokes off of first place.

Go Nick!

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/67419

Shooting another hot round today. Nick is now in 5th.

[Chris Piaseczny]

In a general sense I think us new englanders / North East players can carve some sick lines because most of our courses are more wooded than open. We may not have the bigger bombs (granted some do) But our courses force us to learn to shape lines and shape lines well. It's great to be able to hyzer flip a disc to go though that 6 ft gap 100 ft out and pull right around the large pine that's another 100ft past the gap to fade out back left to hit the perfect landing zone for a birdie putt.

hole 5 blue to blue at B-land?

[Erik Siersdale]

In a general sense I think us new englanders / North East players can carve some sick lines because most of our courses are more wooded than open. We may not have the bigger bombs (granted some do) But our courses force us to learn to shape lines and shape lines well. It's great to be able to hyzer flip a disc to go though that 6 ft gap 100 ft out and pull right around the large pine that's another 100ft past the gap to fade out back left to hit the perfect landing zone for a birdie putt.

hole 5 blue to blue at B-land?

Hole 8 blue to blue borderland (man path)?

[Chris Piaseczny]

In a general sense I think us new englanders / North East players can carve some sick lines because most of our courses are more wooded than open. We may not have the bigger bombs (granted some do) But our courses force us to learn to shape lines and shape lines well. It's great to be able to hyzer flip a disc to go though that 6 ft gap 100 ft out and pull right around the large pine that's another 100ft past the gap to fade out back left to hit the perfect landing zone for a birdie putt.

hole 5 blue to blue at B-land?

Hole 8 blue to blue borderland (man path)?

you Win!

[Kenji Cline]

HaHa too funny. I've never been to borderland

[Andrew Sleeth]

Maine's own Nick Gagne is tearing it up at the Minnesota Majestic. First round 10 down five strokes off of first place.

Go Nick!

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/67419

Shooting another hot round today. Nick is now in 5th.

I checked out the scores and Nikko finished -49, that right there tells me the courses need to be more difficult. IMO the winners should be finishing the weekend -10/-20. I know he's the best but that means the pros are too good for everyday courses and brush needs to be thicker. Maybe not more brush but maybe the hole pars are too low. Some par two's, maybe instead of par 3, then 3's instead of 4 and so on?

[Josh Connell]

Maine's own Nick Gagne is tearing it up at the Minnesota Majestic. First round 10 down five strokes off of first place.

Go Nick!

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/67419

Shooting another hot round today. Nick is now in 5th.

I checked out the scores and Nikko finished -49, that right there tells me the courses need to be more difficult. IMO the winners should be finishing the weekend -10/-20. I know he's the best but that means the pros are too good for everyday courses and brush needs to be thicker. Maybe not more brush but maybe the hole pars are too low. Some par two's, maybe instead of par 3, then 3's instead of 4 and so on?

While maybe you can argue that the courses could be more challenging than they are (I agree), I don't think the argument can or should be based around par. Par is meaningless. The only reason it exists is for the purpose of enforcing Competition Manual section 1.5 B (1) regarding late arrival. Otherwise, it's just an arbitrary number created by who knows who. Whether we call a hole a par 2 or a par 82, the lowest number of throws is the goal.

[Andrew Sleeth]

Josh - that is true, the lowest score is still the lowest score. I guess I'm stuck in the ball golf mindset.

I guess I also think the world should revolve around me...meaning I don't think I should be finishing under par, I want it as a goal to constantly push me to get better but as I get better I want the pars to change so I still strive for subpar, rather than getting complacent at -5 under.

[johnny betts]

Well put Josh. I feel the same way about par in DG. Course SSA is what matters. It is always nice when a course has a posted SSA.

[Karl Molitoris]

Andrew,

Coming from bg, I am also of the belief that "par is sacred", i.e. VERY few bg'ers EVER break par (I've been +1 once in 35 years). So within my first 4 months of dg'ing, I 'broke par' (albeit on an easy course) and immediately thought "gee, dg "par" is wrong...if I can break it after only 4 months of playing".

Part of this comes from the "it's all about instant gratification" concept prevalent today (everyone wants to be able to birdie every hole...and if not, they throw a hissy fit), part of it comes from the proportionally very large "end" we in dg have (a bloddy BIG target), and part of it comes from designers rarely using the concept that a hole's green (which should be protected) actually starts somewhere about 100 feet out...and thus "par" could be based on how many throws it takes to "get to THAT green" plus 2 (or something like that).

A very debate-able topic for sure !

Karl

[Craig Cutler]

Right on Andrew, I agree. When comparing to ball golf, It looks absurd when someone finishes an event at -49. But, its really impossible to compare to ball golf. Top Disc Golf pros are throwing over 500 feet and do not miss within the circle. They can spike hyzer 450+ feet over everything. So, its very difficult to design a course where under par is rare. Past designers created courses based on the current plastic technology and the top players in the area at that time. It's different now.

The new changes (16 and 17) at Maple Hill are indicative of what's happening. Sure there's alot more danger and you will see higher scores, but not for someone who throws over 500 feet. They just throw over all the danger. Par will be harder for those who do not throw 500, the big arms will rack up 2's.

Most parks and private course do not have the land, obstacles, and terrain to make a course where par is sacred for the top players.

Some courses like North Calais (long tees) and Borderlaned Blues take the huge arm throw over everthing element out of the game. Making scores near 50 almost impossible. Most courses in the mid west or west cannot accomplish this.

[Matt Aubin]

Putting is too easy in disc golf, and the average drive distance between a top pro and an 'average' disc golfer is much greater than the spread in BG (like Craig said).

I could go into details with percentages, shots etc and par compared to ball golf etc, but that's really what it boils down to. Par as a scoring system to relate performance from one player to the next (or from course to course) just doesn't carry over well into disc golf. But in the end, you have to have some sort of arbitrary 'number goal' on each hole or course so that players (especially beginners) have a general idea of the difficulty of a hole. It's what we're stuck with as long as we use the term 'golf.'

[Sjur Soleng]

Much easier to understand what a round was when someone just tells you what they shot...not in relation to par. I havent heard a under ? at Cranbury in a while, excluding doubles...when everything is considered a par 3.

[Craig Smolin]

I really like Johnny Bett's idea of a posted SSA for each course. I'd definitely prefer to know what a 1000 rated round would be on a particular course layout, rather than what par is. You'd have a much better appreciation for a good round that way.

Take a course like Wickham - a bunch of short must deuce holes, and a bunch of tweeners (not classic deucable par 3s, but not true two-shot "par 4s" either). If you go the "par route" Wickham doesn't score correctly. You feel slighted just getting a 3 on holes like 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 18. (keeping in mind that these might be "world class par 3s" that are deuceable by huge arms)

But if you go the "SSA route" the value in getting those solid "3s" goes up tremendously, and you don't feel slighted that you just made a 3 and never had a chance for a deuce.

[Shawn Mullen]

I really like Johnny Bett's idea of a posted SSA for each course. I'd definitely prefer to know what a 1000 rated round would be on a particular course layout, rather than what par is. You'd have a much better appreciation for a good round that way.

Take a course like Wickham - a bunch of short must deuce holes, and a bunch of tweeners (not classic deucable par 3s, but not true two-shot "par 4s" either). If you go the "par route" Wickham doesn't score correctly. You feel slighted just getting a 3 on holes like 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 18. (keeping in mind that these might be "world class par 3s" that are deuceable by huge arms)

But if you go the "SSA route" the value in getting those solid "3s" goes up tremendously, and you don't feel slighted that you just made a 3 and never had a chance for a deuce.

At wick you need to just get the 2's and hang in there with threes on the rest. Throw a couple 4's in there on 8 and 11 and there is a really solid round. Wick is a great example smolin.

I'd love to see SSAs posted.

On another note I've played a couple courses outside of NE and they just seemed down right "easy" to me, really open lines with little to avoid...... or like florida golf where the trees are just so small anyone that has half an overhand or a big hyzer can avoid most of the trouble completely. The courses breed the kind of game that the players will have.

[Craig Smolin]

Shawn - a few other examples that come to mind:

Panthorn - five nearly "Par 2" holes, a big helping of several holes that qualify as tweeners, and then a few legit two-shot holes ... holes 14, 15, and 16 immediately come to mind as not being true deuceable par 3s, but aren't two-shot par 4s either.

Very short courses like Cranbury Silvers or Borderland White to White. Saying you shot 4 under par on these layouts doesn't say much ... they're pretty easy layouts and any halfway decent golfer should be "under par". But tell me that a 1000 rated round on Borderland W-W is a 45 and now I have a very concrete goal to aim for.

IMO, disc golf courses need to decide what they're going to be: true par courses, where every hole is either reasonably deuce-able (as a par 3) or is a very definite two-shot hole, where that second shot is not a long putt, but rather a true approach shot (like Wickham Hole 8 or Hole 18 to the long pin).

Or ... go for more SSA style scoring ... not every hole is going to have a great scoring spread, but a 1000 rated round is going to be real accomplishment. This type of course is defined more by just having great holes, rather than the best scoring holes.

[johnny betts]

Eventhough SSA can change on a course due to many factors it usually stays within 2 strokes. We don't even post the pars at Black Falls and Cherry Hill. They are all SSA.

Black Falls:

Silver silver : 44
silver gold: 47
gold silver :50
gold gold: 52-54 depending on pin placements

Cherry Hill:

59-62 depending on pin placements

It is taking some time, but people are starting to catch on. Some are still dissapointed that there are no posted pars at Cherry Hill. Par is meaninless for gauging your ability, because what is par on one course may be different on another.

Another reason we need a rating system for NEFA events so we can get some accurate SSA data for our courses. The few PDGA events held on our courses is not enough data for a real solid SSA.