Thoughts on Middle

Postby MDR_3000 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:00 am

500ft holes aren't par 5s. They are par 3.5 or "tweener" holes. There is only one par 5 in the QC and that's hole 8 at middle.


The placements I didn't like:
Hole 12 in the long, the turnover is a better placement
hole 13 in the long.
hole 14 in the long. middle was the better placement.
16 was OK, but I prefer the straight shot.

Other than that, I thought every other placement was really good. And I really like the long on 2 now that there's a route to the basket.
If she can't swim....she's bound to drizzown.
User avatar
MDR_3000
 
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: Straight outta NoCash.

Postby SoCal19 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:01 pm

Agreed with everything said above. I didn't mean hole nine is a par 5 just hole 8. I think hole 9 in the long is a legitamate par 4 for the average player. A great drive and approach can get you a birdie, and that's how it should be. I think the par of the hole should be decided on how many great shots you have to make to birdie the hole. Par 3 - 1, par 4 - 2, and a par 5 - 3. If you make a great drive on any par 3, you should birdie the hole. If you make a great drive and a great approach or a gret drive and a sick put on a par 4 you should birdie the hole. With par 5's you have to make 3 great shots to ge close enough to birdie. You have set your next shot up with the one your about to throw. Hole 8 at middle is a great example. You can't just launch a disc down the fairway where ever and expect to take a four. You have to place your shots in the right positions to have a good line at the basket.

Hole #14 in the longs is a bad placement the way the fairway is shaped right now. The line is not shaped the way a golf disc flies. On that hole the disc either hyzers out too soon or goes too straight into a tree. I thinks some clearing should be done.
User avatar
SoCal19
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Davenport, IA

Postby jack » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:03 pm

SoCalSprtsbum32038 wrote:500ft holes are good for the game, because they create par 5's which are appropriate to the way golf is played. They make you think 2 shots ahead.


To clarify, 500 ft wide open holes on flat ground are boring because most pros and better Advanced players will get a 3 on them most of the time, regardless of whether they throw 400 ft (pros don't routinely make 100-ft putts) or 300 ft (most people don't mess up 200 ft approaches). I'm drawing a blank as to an example that most of the people who read this board would be familiar with. Maybe the long tee for hole 5 at Camden if it were on flat ground? That said, 500-ft holes in the woods or with elvevation changes can be good (eg, long tee hole 7 at Camden, long tee hole 10 at Geneseo).
jack
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby SoCal19 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:31 pm

I agree. 500ft flat holes are boring, but were not talking about 500ft flat holes, were talking about holes 8 and 9 at middle park, which have elevation, O.B., trees, and dog legs.
User avatar
SoCal19
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Davenport, IA

Postby MDR_3000 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:39 pm

I don't think 8 or 9 are 500 feet.



...ok 9 may be, but I think Tanner was reffering to hole 4.
If she can't swim....she's bound to drizzown.
User avatar
MDR_3000
 
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: Straight outta NoCash.

Postby SoCal19 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:43 pm

I guess my intentions are holes 500ft+.
User avatar
SoCal19
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Davenport, IA

Postby SoCal19 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:48 pm

My point is that hole 8 in the longs is not a boring hole, even though it's over 500ft.
User avatar
SoCal19
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Davenport, IA

Postby MDR_3000 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:54 pm

good point....but nobody was saying otherwise.
If she can't swim....she's bound to drizzown.
User avatar
MDR_3000
 
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: Straight outta NoCash.

Postby SoCal19 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:20 pm

Jack was.
User avatar
SoCal19
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Davenport, IA

Postby MDR_3000 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:30 pm

where?
If she can't swim....she's bound to drizzown.
User avatar
MDR_3000
 
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: Straight outta NoCash.

Postby SoCal19 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:47 pm

jack wrote:
SoCalSprtsbum32038 wrote:500ft holes are good for the game, because they create par 5's which are appropriate to the way golf is played. They make you think 2 shots ahead.


To clarify, 500 ft wide open holes on flat ground are boring because most pros and better Advanced players will get a 3 on them most of the time, regardless of whether they throw 400 ft (pros don't routinely make 100-ft putts) or 300 ft (most people don't mess up 200 ft approaches). I'm drawing a blank as to an example that most of the people who read this board would be familiar with. Maybe the long tee for hole 5 at Camden if it were on flat ground? That said, 500-ft holes in the woods or with elvevation changes can be good (eg, long tee hole 7 at Camden, long tee hole 10 at Geneseo).
User avatar
SoCal19
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Davenport, IA

Postby MDR_3000 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:49 pm

still not seeing where he called hole 8 or hole 9 flat and or wide open.
If she can't swim....she's bound to drizzown.
User avatar
MDR_3000
 
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: Straight outta NoCash.

Postby SoCal19 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:54 pm

When I said that 500ft holes were good for the game, I was refering to holes like 8 and 9 at Middle. He then said that 500ft flat holes were boring, quoting my statement, implying that he thought those two holes were boring, or at least that's the way I took it. Either way, I'm done with this thread. It's beginning to get long and boring. :roll:
User avatar
SoCal19
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:38 pm
Location: Davenport, IA

Postby MDR_3000 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:01 pm

you didn't say what holes you were refering to, jack was refering to flat 500ft holes in general.
If she can't swim....she's bound to drizzown.
User avatar
MDR_3000
 
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: Straight outta NoCash.

Postby K.C. » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:03 pm

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18: Keep 'em all in the longs (like they were set up for the 2nd round, at least.)

7: Like the first round, so no one throws it into the tee pad of 8. (Like someone told me: that'll REALLY piss someone off when trying to hoist out their drive on a 1000 ft. shot, and then get pegged by a stray disc.)

12. MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better hole in that middle placement. Its actually reachable, but you have to throw the right shot. (It also incorporates the cliff edge a bit more.)

14. I loved the middle placement and thought it worked a whole lot better than the long. But, this one is a personal choice, I have no REAL argument besides that I thought the long was just sort of lame.

16. Its just a much better, more complicated shot when in the long straight position. The second round position was pretty basic, really, and if you can throw a 260 ft. hyzer (which I, obviously, can not)...then it should be a deuce.

17. Well, it WILL be spectacular once the real long position is in. Very challenging 3.

Sorry, I forgot one:

13. Keep it in the long for two reasons. 1...it makes you throw an EXTREME hyzer or skip shot that you (probably) have not thrown yet in the round, and is a very complicated line. 2...less chance of hitting someone on the tee for 14.
K.C.
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Bettendorf - Middle Park

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest