Mandatories!!!

I was just reading John Houcks article in the latest world news and having a little chuckle. If you read #6 Mandatories John says "Mandatories are a crutch course designers should always avoid."

He goes on to quote Harold Duvall "If you have to use them, make sure that they are 1) very difficult to miss---mandatories should direct traffic, not create artificial obstacles;and 2) large enough in size and close enough to the tee such that is very easy to determine whether a shot made or missed the mandatory."

So what is hole #14 at USDGC with the triple mandatory???

[MTL21676]

ive played it and I'll answer.....a Circle 4!

It's the exception that proves the rule. See John's article Ball Golf Course Design Offer Hints for Better Disc Golf Courses (http://circularproductions.com/article1_ball_golf.phtml)

Great Article, thanks Felix....and if any of you want an idea of what he speaks of, play one of Johns 2 premier private courses here in Texas. Circle R, and Circle R2, are AWESOME courses, that are good examples of what this article speaks of. World Doubles is now held @ CR2, in San Saba, so many touring players have seen it.
Circle R is between Wimberley and Blanco, west of San Marcos. I highly recommend both......

[xterramatt]

I have to say, after much whining from me this weekend, that the mando on #8 at Richmond hills is one of the most unfair I have ever played. 225' hole... pretty straight shot, but then it's a hard left to get to the pin. The pin is hidden behind a MASSIVE Oakish tree. So it's not even a hyzer shot, it's more like a firebird stall to get to the basket. The mando is 180 feet off the pin on the left side of the fairway, blocking a straight shot to the safe zone. There was an OB creek that went diagonally across the right side, that pretty much made even a safe straight left shot a risk. What's worse, the drop zone did not give you even a hint of a clean shot at the basket, which had 2 locations, hard and harder. This was a simple righty shot, but for a lefty without an awesome sidearm, it was [*****] near impossible to 3. I missed the mando 4 times. Twice trying to sidearm it, then another 1 trying to anheuser in, and a fourth just trying to lay up (that was my fault). The drop zone was the worst part though, I already took a stroke for missing the mando, I should at least have a safe shot at the 4. My scores, circle 5, circle 5, circle 6, circle 4.

The mando and the short pin position were maybe 50-60 feet from each other. Righties were birdying, while I (only lefty I saw play it) lost 4 additional strokes due to uncool design. Miss the mando it should be a simple 4. I mean, it's a 225 foot hole!

Sounds like a BS mando to me, and I'm a righty.....NO mandatories, should be placed, where they benefit right OR left handers.

Some people just need to stop taking out their sexual frustrations, on thier fellow golfers, setting up assinine mandos.

/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

A mando should only really be used for player safety. We have a couple of mando's on one course that are almost impossible to miss, but they only exist because an errant shot along that path would come too close to a tee pad.

Now the mando I saw in KC during the h2open on hole 18 was in my opinion unnecessary. It was about 50ft from the pad through a gap between 2 trees that was about 10ft wide. It wasn't even straight in front of the teepad, but off to the left. Was it a reasonable mando? No. They just wanted to make the hole harder. Which they have every right to do, but it didn't add anything to the hole in my opinion. It just took a possible duece into a possible circle 4 or more if you missed that small gap. Not to say that this ruined my enjoyment of the course or tourney (my bad play did that for me), but I didn't care for the double mando as much as I liked all the rope OB.

It's a real shame when the showcase of Disc golf has to use yellow tape for OB's and a triple mando hole to make the course tougher. Is this bad design or what!

YES, it surely is......

I am way with u guys on the mando problem. A mandatory should only be in place to protect other fairways and golfers.
If any of u guys have played the Wintertime Open, u will truly understand the meaning of the phrase "useless mandatory". The TD puts in mandatories just to make the course harder and reduce the number of birdies.

Apparently some TDs enjoy making a course harder just for the sake of making it harder.
I don't mind playing a course where under par is a good score, but some common sense needs to be used in the Course Design.

[briangraham]

Steve,
You have obviously never played the Winthrop Gold Course! There are two main reasons it is the number 1 event in disc golf today. One is the professional level in which the event is run and the other is the challenging course.

Your statement is akin to saying "Its a shame that the US Open (ball golf) has to lengthen the course, use higher rough, and narrow the fairways to make the course tougher."

Winthrop is not bad design. The USDGC layout is genious in that it has very successfully turned a long, wide open, bomber course into a course that rewards strategy, skill and precision over driving length. Isn't that what golf is all about?

I have to agree with Brian.

The design of the USDGC course takes away the distance advantage that the "Big Arms" would have without the yellow rope.

Brian,
You're right, that is what golf is all about, but using artificial devices to make it so is not. You won't see yellow tape and mandos at the US Open to make it tougher, it would be an outrage. If they don't want to use a long wide open bomber course, change the venue. Don't trick it up with tape.

> Is this bad design or what!

I think it's an attempt to create a challenging course, given:

a) the limitations imposed by the terrain;

b) the lack of natural obstacles;

c) caliber of the players.

Take away the OB on any number of holes, and a mediocre shot can still yield an easy birdie. The artificial OB forces players to execute good shots to make par, and "heroic" shots (John Houck's terminilogy) to make birdies and eagles.

Read John Houck's article referred to above (and the others on his site as well), then review Winthrop Gold in your head and ask yourself whether the course, minus the OB, is a credible (much less a world-class) challenge to the caliber of players competing in the USDGC, e.g., is Hole 10 a legitimate par 4, or Hole 12 a legitimate par 5 without the OB?

Given $2 million and carte blanche to terraform the property, the artificial OB wouldn't be necessary, but given the financial, ecological, and political constraints of: a) having to share the land with other athletic activities; and b) being guests on Winthrop U's land, having artificial OB may be the best that can be made of a less than ideal setting.

Felix,
I can agree with what you're saying, and that may be the only way John can address the wide open fairways. It is not a big deal to me, it just seems a little flaky when you see it in such a major event. I'm all for skill and precision over length as Brian say's. I think the game has been leaning a bit too much in the length direction, just as ball golf has. Instead of more obstacles, both sports are making courses longer, so maybe you guys are right, if that's the only way to make it tougher, then so be it.

Steve, you summed it up perfectly.

By Felix: "Given $2 million and carte blanche to terraform the property, the artificial OB wouldn't be necessary, but given the financial, ecological, and political constraints of: a) having to share the land with other athletic activities; and b) being guests on Winthrop U's land, having artificial OB may be the best that can be made of a less than ideal setting."

If it is a less than ideal setting, why is it used? Surely there are other courses/venues that could provide as much, or more, challenging DG without having to "trick it up with tape?"

[mule1]

Winthrop Gold is an awesome course. Its not for the weak of mind. They play elsewhere.

[xterramatt]

It's also one of the most spectator friendly and video and photography friendly courses in the world. One of it's advantages is it allows those with roller skills to really get an edge. It's manicured like a ball golf course, but it meanders around some very different terrain and natural OB. Some of the longer holes were given more OB to make the pro think. There are wide landing areas, and narrow areas beyond for those that "risk" the big throws. risk reward. Play smart and you do good, play all out and you can help or hurt yourself. If you can play all out on every hole, and keep your discs under control, you will do well, if you risk it and you fail to esecute perfectly, strokes can add up. It's just like golf. Lay up, or go for the green.... the age old question...

> that may be the only way John can address the wide open fairways.

Steve, Winthrop Gold is designed by Harold Duvall, not John Houck.

> If it is a less than ideal setting, why is it used?

A) because the course is on private property, and can be closed to the general public for the entire week without affecting local taxpayers' access to public park facilities;

B) because it has the permanent on-site facilities to house tournament offices, a player's only clubhouse, indoor putting/warm-up area, and adequate player and spectator parking, etc.;

C) because it's close enough to Innova East and ZoneDriven for their employees to prepare for the tournament ON COMPANY TIME without having to shut down their businesses;

C) because it's the brainchild of Harold Duvall of Innova East;

and last, but not least,

E) because it's the TD's prerogative to determine which course or courses will be used for his/her tournament.

> You won't see yellow tape and mandos at the US Open to make it tougher, it would be an outrage.

But you will see white stakes or a white line on the ground defining OB lines (Rules of Golf, Rule 27), artificial hazards (man-made water hazards, sand traps, pot bunkers, etc.) all designed to "trick up" a course.

* Disc golf has to use yellow tape for OB's and a triple mando hole to make the course tougher. Is this bad design or what! *

Until DG as a sport can afford to build obstacles on a course that provide the same utility (foliage screen) as a simple cost effective mando, you can expect mandos to be of value in DG course design.

Personally, as a player, I've generally found mandos interesting. Usually they show the course designer was thinking about how to add some interesting challenge a (typically very) limited course site...

Mandos fit the general golf rule as being a reasonable recognisable challenge to holing out.

As far mandos go, my first exposure to mandos was at a BG course that was founded around 1890... Mandos aren't a DG invention... The mando prevented you from cutting around a corner, but instead required players to demonstrate an ability to make a controlled slice/hook to have a good drive.

[MTL21676]

Winthrop is hard as crap..i shot 72 w/out the yellow rope out there.....

[idahojon]

I'm sure that Augusta National would be a great place for the Master's if it wasn't "tricked up" with all the trees, sand traps, water hazards, OB stakes, pine needles, etc etc etc.

Disc golf course design is all about taking a "less than ideal" location (read dense woods, mountainside, desert) and transforming it into a course by the use of distance analysis, OB designation, mandatory location (when necessary), and a number of other methods. Designating a road or walkway as OB is just as artificial as a yellow rope. It's done for safety or game control reasons. It makes the game interesting and challenging.

I've not played Winthrop, but I've walked the course a few time, watching competition. It is a beautiful course from the esthetic aspect, a challenging one from the competitive aspect, and as Harold says, "a work in progress." It uses the natural features as much as possible, only introducing OB or mandatories to raise the level of risk/reward for the top players in the world.

Drive down in October, Andy. Watch a couple rounds of the Championship. See how the pros deal with it. See how it deals with the pros. I think you'll have a different take on things than you do from afar.

Kirk your statement about the "big arm" advantage is total crap. Do you think that those people just woke up and could throw that far? No they practiced throwing far and worked on throwing far. Wether most people want to believe it or not Barry and Kenny are two of the biggest throwers in the game. So why punish someone who has learned a skill. Tiger has pushed the game to a new level because he has practiced in order to drive the ball far. So what your saying is that becuase he has a skill that not many others have then that advatage should be taken away.

Kirk you are nuts to even bring up something like that. Go practice and quit complaing that people can throw farther than you. Distance is a skill not a lucky talent.

Look at the people that have been succsseful: Kenny, Barry, Stokely, Brinster, Haney, Gangaloff all of these guys can throw 500' when they need to.

[rhett]

Does KC throw 500'? I thought it was more like 430' and a 97% success rate at putting from 70' and in. /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[Chris Hysell]

Oh boy here it comes. Kirk can throw farther than me. Why can't school teachers spell?

[ck34]

Reality check on how far top Open players can regularly throw in competition. Go to this website and look at the distances measured for the top 10 Open groups at last year's Worlds on a wide open hole. The numbers are in yards with an average that works out to 378'. Having done the measurements, I recall Ken's drive at around 360' or so. Not a single drive of 167 yards in the list (which would be over 500 feet). Only a few air shots were over 450 feet.

[ck34]

Here's the site: http://www.circularproductions.com/drivinglengths.htm

Chuck I agree with you that peoples persecption of distance is way off. However I have personally witnessed all of the gentlemen on my list throw that far when they need to. Kenny won the FL states with a throw of like 176m.

Your little survey in Huston was about the worst conditions I have ever seen. 100 degrees with 90% humidity, swirling wind, and horrible tee pads. Plus there was ob road to worry about. Accuracy was more important than distance on that hole.

> Do you think that those people just woke up and could throw that far? No they practiced throwing far and worked on throwing far.

Hard work is important, but it will only get you so far.

I've been working to reach 400' (field) for the past 18 months: taking lessons from pros, field throwing 3 times a week, 100 throws each time, general fitness exercising on days I'm not throwing. I've had the occasional freak throw that's hit 400, but generally I top out around 380.

Last week, my brother, who has played all of 3 rounds in his life and does not exercise regularly, came along for one of my field throwing sessions. After about 10-15 throws, he was consistently out-throwing me by 40-50'. I guarantee that if he cared enough to work at it, he'd break 500' within a year.

I'm also willing to bet that, aside from advances in disc technology, I could train 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, for an entire year, and not reach 500'.

Some people ARE naturally gifted to be able to throw farther and harder with a lot less effot than others. It's called "genetics." That ain't the whole story, but it's a not insignificant part of the story. Given reasonably similar training, age, and health, a sprinter whose muscle mass is 30% fast twitch/70% slow twitch fibre will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage against one whose muscle mass is 70% fast twitch/30% slow twitch.

[ck34]

Not true Stephanie. I checked my notes and it says 'calm with dew' for their conditions that Friday. It wasn't hot considering that I was standing out there that morning for 90 minutes or so as these 10 groups passed. That tee on hole 7 of the Toruney course was a nice level one in good shape. OB was a minimal factor that maybe would slightly come into play past 500 feet.

I agree that all of those players can throw longer than these numbers when they are trying to throw for distance in ideal wind conditions. But they don't throw that far during golf rounds.

Stephanie,

I wasn't complaining. I was stating a fact.

And just for the record, I can throw a disc pretty far when I need to. One of the players you listed at the end of your tirade lost to me in the finals of a distance competition in October 2002. I just can't putt to save my life.

Kirk

Kirk,

Ok, you beat Walt and I beat Ed Williams. But in a 1 disc throw off, anybody can get lucky. We both know that you cannot throw farther than Walt and I cannot throw farther than Ed./msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Just got the chance to come back & read this again.

Jon, I'm sure Winthrop is splendiferous; I never meant to poop on the course, just mandos. I think they are to be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary, that's all. They are a crutch for those who are not creative in design or those too lazy or impatient to install the best possible course layout. Just my opinion.

Drive down & check it out? I'd love nothing more. Unfortunately, the significant debt I am generating by going to Am Worlds will be prohibiting me from any fun-time travel that will not generate income.

Rob,

I didn't mention Walt's name because I didn't want him to feel bad about losing to an old man. I also didn't mention the other touring pro that I beat as well.

Kirk

In the mid 80's San Antonio, Tx. hosted a tourney in the courtyard of a Motel. Andy Maldonado ran these. Much fun! But, Make a 9 hole into a 12 hole, Because of turnout, and they needed a "Double Dogleg" Or a Gate. A great time, But these things are a real PAIN! I like a mando, but just 1 please!!!/clipart/happy.gif "meister"

[exczar]

Hauf,

Were you in SA the year there was a some sort of *** pride convention going on at the same time? Kind of changed the Sat night conversations at the hot tub. Remember the antics of the late ? Rowan? What was his nickname? Buffalo?

I remember that funky mando. Hoser and I played worst shot on that course and did great, IIRC.

BTW, I think it was because of what was set up that people started calling Andy Maldonado "Andy MandyAllHoles"...

[davei]

Just for the record, the USDGC design does not take away any distance advantage a player may have, as long as it comes with accuracy. It requires all shots to be accurate, including long distance shots. In other words, accurate distance can help alot, inaccurate distance will hurt. A premium has been placed on accuracy, but there are many holes where a long accurate drive (or approach) will gain a significant advantage. Holes 2,4,5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,18

[idahojon]

Andy,

I'm sure Harold will be thrilled to find out that he is "not creative in design" and "too lazy or impatient to install the best possible course layout."

Dave,

Your right. I should have made that clear.

"accurate distance can help alot, inaccurate distance will hurt"

Kirk

After thinking about this for a while, my conclusion is this; designing a Disc golf course means the only artificial items you add to the piece of property that you have to work with is the tee pads and the baskets. No tape on trees, paint, rope etc.. We can't really compare Disc golf course design with ball golf, because everything about a ball golf course is really artificial when you think about it. You design and build the two differently. When I see mandos on courses, I see one of two things, either the hole or holes were badly designed, or you're trying to turn a course into something it was not designed for, i.e. changing a wide open big arm course into an accuracy course. I'm sure the USDGC course is a great course in it's own right, use it for what it's designed for, why change it into something it's not (especially for such a major event), use a different venue.

[ck34]

Steve, you need to think a little more if you only see two things regarding mandos. Several mandos I've seen are not the result of bad original design but bad luck due to mother nature or changes to the park outside the designer's control. What do you do if a wind storm knocks down a group of large trees that blocked an unsafe route that now opens up. Short of redesigning the course, sometimes mandos are the solution. On another course, it turns out the power company comes through every ten years and cuts down the trees that have grown up to threaten power lines. Who knew? I think few designers look for places to put mandos in original designs. My experience is seeing them arise after the design is in place and future terrain changes or park developments force the issue.

Yes, there are some who like mando challenges for tournaments and I'm not against it in moderation. It's a matter of how fairly it's done. In particular, it can make sense for temp courses where you can't do the kind of things needed for a permanent layout (like cut trees or place a permanent tee pad in a better position to avoid mandos).

[underparmike]

i think mandos should only be used for safety. why complicate things? hasn't there been controversy over the clown's mouth hole at the USDGC because players disagreed over whether a disc had made the triple mando? i would hate to lose strokes on that basis.

i'm not so opposed to artificial o.b. because it is easy to determine if a disc at rest is o.b. or not. and i believe that ball golf's premier events do have tournament o.b.'s from time to time, usually to protect the gallery. i would rather there be only natural o.b. on all courses however.

and, you can put all the o.b.'s & mandos on a course that you want, shorten it or lengthen it, but when the purse is large the best players in the sport are still going to come out ahead.

Chuck,
What I'm talking about is original course design or changing a course from its original design. I understand what you're saying and agree that sometimes you have to use a mando when some outside force changes what you build originally.

Jon, I was led to believe that the mandos in question at Winthrop were only temp ones that were put in place solely for the USDGC?

I mean no disrespect to anyone, anywhere, that contributes in any way to the sport.

I was just stating my opinion regarding mandatories.

Back to the original post. Harold agrees that mandatories should not be used according to his quote in the world news. Yet he disregards that on his own course. That is what I don't understand.

[ck34]

I suspect negative reaction to mandatories is partially a typical American reaction to someone stating a rule that you can't do something. In Japan, it's mando to play with 150 class discs. I suspect that they don't have a problem with that as much as I suspect we would have if it were also mandated here.

As Dr. Fred pointed out, ball golf did have mandos in earlier course designs. I'm trying to find something in the golf history about mandos in their design but haven't found anything so far. There's nothing I could find in the latest USGA Rulebook about it even in their local rules section.

[rhett]

Making the statement that it's lame to use mandos and fake OB at such a prestigious event as the USDGC is asinine! The USDGC has become a prestigious event BECAUSE of the mandys and the fake OB that test the true mettle and skills of the players that compete there. It's a big part of the whole package. Invite only, Innova supplied CE Rocs that fund the purse, brutal but totally fair course. And the hard-working visionary that was able to put it all together.

It would not be the same without a course that tested all your golf skills.

Steve, when YOU put up with the overwhelming MAJORITY of the sponsorship dollars and volunteer hours, you can design the course however you want and put your championship anywhere you darn well please. Until then, you're nothing more than a eunuch in a harem who knows all about it, has seen it done before, but has never done it himself.

Stephanie, it's called having to live in the real world with its limitations and inevitable compromises, not the world of abstract design principles.You ought to try it sometime.

name calling & personal attacks, in a polite discussion. yeah, that's real cool. And your point was......?

Chuck,
It's not a written rule, but I do know the USGA will not have an event where there is OB on the inside of a golf course (I'm not talking about water hazards). OB is basically the fence or property line (white stakes, fence, or white line if no fence exists) of the course. There was one case back in the early 80's where they broke this rule, I can't speak to the early part of the 20th century.

[briangraham]

Steve,
There is a golf course in my town that has OB "on the inside of the golf course" and they still have a tournament there. Its not a PGA or USGA sanctioned event but some people still think its a pretty good tournament.

[briangraham]

Oh yeah! My town is Augusta, GA and the tournament is called the Master's.

[underparmike]

the USDGC is not respected for its mandos, rhett. it's the size of the purse, and the strong field that purse attracts, and the great way the players are treated at the event. the players take the good with the bad. bad=triple mando.

Brian,
Just curious,
what OB is on the inside of that golf course? Remember, we're not talking about water hazards.

[rhett]

UPM, the money didn't show up until the third year. I would argue that the prestige of the first two years prompted the donation of the CE Rocs in 2001 that pumped up the purse.

Rhett and that is also the year that the triple mando was put into effect. I think that if there wasn't a $56,000 purse alot of players might not come back.

I wouldn't care if every hole had a triple mando. I will be there every year!!! It has nothing to do with the money. It is how well they care for the players.

[rrps]

Right on Kirk.

[keithjohnson]

i agree with kirk also.. i wish i could get invited back...
by the way...there were several manodos at the san diego open...including a triple mando
all announced ahead of time..all clearly marked and fake ob as well...and the course did what it was supposed to do...reward STRATEGIC play...punish distance without accurasy...and i don't think you would find more than a couple of people(rhett"i wanted to get through that hole")
that thought the mandos were not a good use of the course that was able to be used...just my opinion

[rhett]

hey now, I was bummed when they took that mandy out for the thrid round for the Ams. I know I would've made it through that third time. I know it...

[keithjohnson]

well since you teed from right in front of the mandy line I HOPE YOU MADE IT THROUGH! the third time /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[rhett]

Keith, I shot from that exact same spot all three rounds! /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[keithjohnson]

at least the last round didn't cost you an extra stroke /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

i should say on the drive.....didn't you get like a 6 or 8 or something like that without the mandy? /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[rhett]

It was a three! /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif I deuced it from there the first round for a four, though.

[james_mccaine]

I thought I read in the USDGC thread that there was a "downward" mando, but the thread is too large for me to find it. To anyone that knows, is this true?

The language in the rules seems to anticipate/allow this type of mando, but I have never seen or played one. Has anyone ever played a downward (or upward) mondo before? If so, please describe.

James it's called "Clowns Mouth" You have to throw between two trees that are 15-20 feet apart and also go below the board spanning the 2 trees that is around 12 feet high. The tee pad is around 125 ft away. I made it once! But I [*****].

[briangraham]

James,
Hole 14 on the Winthrop University Gold Course has a triple mandatory. Many players refer to this hole as the "Clowns Mouth". The player is required to throw his/her disc through a window or tunnel located apporoximately 100' in front of the tee box. The opening is defined on the left and right by two trees about 20' apart. They are also required to throw under a barricade which is located between these two trees and approximately 20' above the ground.

The USDGC has been won and lost on this hole.

[james_mccaine]

Thanks Shannon, I now know that it can be done. By the way, you don't [*****], whatever that is. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[spartan]

your still my hero, Fozzy.

What's up with Circle C and Teams? Let a brotha know.

The Strawbale Field course at Circle R2 in San Saba has a natural Clown's Mouth, pictured here (http://www.circularproductions.com/sansaba/images/sf11clownsmouth.jpg).

ObThreadTitle: By use of a mandatory, the course designer could force spike hyzer throwers to actually throw through the Mouth instead.

[disctance00]

That does it, never been to San Saba and now I see that photo. I've gotta make it there that looked like some excellent terrain to play DG.

[james_mccaine]

Yes Rodney, that is a good example (and there are others on that course and the River course) of a hole that would be given more character by using a downward mando (could be near the teepad), forcing people to execute a more skillful shot.

From reading earlier posts on this thread, I understand a mando like that would be controversial, but it my opinion, it would be very cool.

Distance, as ssoon as my schedule changes we can head to San Saba.

[jconnell]

I beg to differ on the clown's mouth at Winthrop, in that its size is greatly exagerated.

This weekend, I paced it off at about 8-9 feet wide, and I could reach up and touch the upper board, so it was under definitely under 10 feet high. It is much smaller than most give it credit for.

Perhaps it is because there are routes around it, but I felt when playing it that it was a bit extraneous and unnecessary to the hole. Two shots could land in exactly the same spot, but one is ruled no good based solely on how it got there.

In general, I don't disagree with mandatories when they are there for general safety concerns. The three other mandatories on the Winthrop Gold course made sense as they dis-allowed players from taking dangerous, blind shots over areas where non-golfers would not be expecting to see discs flying, or they prevented throwing through other fairways and spectator areas where no one would be looking in the proper direction.

But the triple-mando does nothing to protect those kind of areas. All it does is force a shot through a specific piece of air, when other routes would be adequate and safe, and would land discs in the same area. I thought the hole played difficult enough with the O/B parking lot to cross and the O/B stadium on the right side of the green. Perhaps not the tough par-4 it was labeled as, but certainly a challenging par-3 without the mando.

Maybe I'm a bit tainted having missed the mando all 4 rounds by a grand total of about 7 feet. Maybe it is because I watched it cost Ken Climo 2 strokes in the final round when his drive missed clean to the right by just 3 feet, and Barry's shot clipped one of the mando trees and cleared the mando line by about 5 feet. Not to take anything away from Barry who still made an unbelievable shot from next to the mando to get to the green and gain a stroke on Ken. But a shot that hits a tree and happens to trickle in the right direction shouldn't be considered better than one that gets cleanly down the fairway.

The clown's mouth, in my opinion, is the only negative on that course. I think it can be corrected just by removing it. Or if the designers want drives to go between those trees, move the tee up to where the drop zone was. Make it a risk/reward shot of going for the green over the parking lot, or laying up short of it.

Mandos for safety...good.
Mandos for the sake of mandos...poor.

Just my opinion...

--Josh

I think that the Clown's Mouth hole is fair for the USDGC. I am fortunate enough to play at Winthrop as my "home" course. I don't hit the gap but maybe 25% of the time. I agree that Mando's aren't necessary when they aren't there for safety reasons, but the top golfers in the world should be able to hit that gap from 100 ft. The USDGC is not catering to an amatuer, woman's or masters field. If they had different divisions, then my opinion would change. The top pros shouldn't have a problem hitting it. Winthrop doesn't have the luxuries that Rennaisance has to design holes around hitting a specific spot. One really tight drive shouldn't be that hard to live with. Just my two pennies worth. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

[gang4010]

There used to be a stump mandatory up at Queen Elizabeth park in Vancouver, B.C. that was just brutal. The stump had a hole underneath it that was no more than 16" off the ground - and about as wide. You teed off from maybe 160-180 feet away - and the basket was another 60-70' past the stump. I heard it was aced one time /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

I think it's interesting that so many people have trouble with mandatories for the sake of it. When I first learned to play - we had directional mandos all over the course. My impression was that the course design was based on dictating a path - thus requiring a specific skill be performed to be successful on the hole. I don't see why this is an "issue" for folks. What's wrong with it anyway?

> a shot that hits a tree and happens to trickle in the right direction shouldn't be considered better than one that gets cleanly down the fairway.

Josh, in principle, what is the difference between this scenario and one in which a shot hits an OB tree and kicks back IB vs. a shot that clears the tree to the OB side but never makes it back in?

[disctance00]

If that ace is true that would be one incredible shot. Who threw it Bigfoot?

[jconnell]

Felix,

Point taken. Perhaps it was a poor example. What I was trying to say is why should Barry's shot, which hit a tree early, be considered better than Ken's shot, which missed the tree and landed in the fairway?

A better example would be if Ken's shot and Barry's shot landed right on top of one another. Ken's having gone just outside the mando while Barry's went just inside it (perhaps a matter of 4 feet difference left to right). Why should one be good and one not based solely on how it got there?

In my opinion, it should be more about where it lands than how it got there. Whether you throw a lefty hyzer, righty hyzer, roller, forehand turnover, overhand thumber, etc, it should be where it lands that determines the "good" shot, not the path it took.

And before the counter comes using OB as the example again, I'm fully in support of "stroke and distance" for ALL OB, with the only alternative being a drop zone on designated OB areas. Once it's out, it's out and the "punishment" is uniform for all. How it got there is irrelevant with regard to the penalty.

--Josh

[james_mccaine]

I also wonder why there is such hostility towards mandos. I see nothing wrong with using mandos to test certain skills and more importantly, to test the nerves. In fact, when I get bored with my home course, I will artificially create mandos to liven it up.

I also think mandos can address some of the issues mentioned in Houck's article: namely, the shot that is 45% off line, but still ends up equivalent to a "good" shot. An easy-to-make mando can correct that injustice.

I'm not advocating a goony-golf type setup, but if you do not have good land to start with, or you do not have the money for improvements, you gotta do something to make it interesting.

[gnduke]

Stroke and distance takes away one very important aspect in disc golf OBs. Let's look at hole 10 at the USDGC. The drive isn't the most important shot, the upshot is.

If you are in the middle of the fairway 300' off the tee and the wind is blowing left to right, you have two choices. The wind assisted 380' hyzer shot that is over OB for almost the entire flight (and very risky), or the anhyzer that is over safe ground the entire time, but may be held down by the wind and travel OB at the end of the flight.

I don't think that penalty should be the same for the player that attmepts a shot with litle risk and the player that attempts a very risky shot.

[warwickdan]

Josh...Some good arguments on your part. As a player one place out of last at the USDGC I thought the Clown's Mouth was a great hole. I had nothing to lose so I played this hole aggressively all 4 rounds. I successfully passed thru the mando 3 out of the 4 rounds. On 2 of those 3 rounds I had birdie putts (of course i missed them both). I ended up with 3 4's and a circle 6 on this hole. What I like about the design of this hole is that it messes with your head and makes the hole harder than it really is. There is a huge risk/reward component to this hole. You can play safe and lay up to the mouth, but then you need a well-placed approach to stay short of the parking lot and then another accurate lay-up of about 200 feet with a fast green to have a shot at Par 4. If you go for the mouth, you might have a chance at a 3, or if you miss you're struggling to save a bogey 5. This hole usually results in players of a foursome all having quite different experiences when they play the hole. In the final group in Round 4, Ken Climo missed the mouth and took a circle 5 after nailing his 40' putt. Steve Rico played safe to the base of the mouth and took a 5. Craig Leyva hit the tree to the right, dribbled thru, and took a 5. And Barry hit the left tree and kicked thru by about 40-50 feet. He threw an approach shot long and left and was left with an uphill 50' putt, which he just missed when he hit off the top band of the basket. He settled for a 4, the only member of the top group that parred the hole. It made for great strategy and drama.

[august]

I personally do not like to see holes like the "clown mouth" hole. I think it only provides more fodder for the rest of the sporting world to laugh at us and blow us off as a something less than a true sport. In trying to improve the disc golf image, I think we should shy away from that. To me, a hole like that is just "wacky golf" and should be kept to Putt Putt establishments.

I think the Winthrop Gold course is otherwise very beautiful and well designed. Other than the "wacky golf" hole, I think what they have there is the future of disc golf.

Just my personal 2 cents worth.

[briangraham]

Hole 14 - Winthrop Gold Course
http://www.usdgc.com/gallery/sunday_am/pages/DSC_0468.htm

[jeffash]

Here's one from the other side showing the width, height, and the drop zone pad. Ignore that bum wearing a non-collared shirt who is throwing a black Comet straight thru enroute to one of his two birdie threes on that hole./clipart/wink.gif
Hole 14 (http://www.usdgc.com/gallery/saturday_am/pages/DSC_0835.htm)

Jeff, the next picture is MUCH better. /clipart/proud.gif

[jeffash]

You gotta' love that "edit post" feature, eh Rodney?
Felix, the next one does provide a better perspective, but the scenery isn't nearly as nice./clipart/wink.gif

[whorley]

Thank you discette, D is not everything.

Brandon, you can compete and even win PDGA tournaments without having any distance. Have you ever heard of Chris Hysell?

[girlie]

Wrong thread Whorley /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

[whorley]

gracias

[Chris Hysell]

Thanks for spreading the legend of Chris Hysell to every thread. BTW, Vince is from Va. and there is a new rumor that his sidearm is much better than mine.

[whorley]

Ha! Don't make me try to act modest /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif Maybe if had played more than two rounds with you in my life I could have learned something.

The bermuda triangle of disc golf lies in between Route 29,I-95 and the NC line. That will soon be remedied by the course in Appomattox. Then you'll be forced to come closer to my hizz-ouse.

[exczar]

Doesn't the CMouth simulate a "tunnel" shot so common in the Midwest, where a shot is going through a fairway in the woods, and the canopy of trees above prevents a throw through them?

I would think the Midwest/Southeast players would like the CM, since it helps, as does the artificial OB, to tighten the course.

I personally hate mandos, unless your going to behead someone if there not there...and if thats the case why'd ya put the t-box in the way in the first place! think about the course before you put in cement.