Had the pleasure of playing a round at the site of The Red Hawk, site of this year’s inaugural Players Cup yesterday with four area pros: Rob Parlaman, Dan Median, Billy Seaman, and Gregg Hosfeld. We had a lengthy discussion regarding how difficult a championship course should be, what “par” means, what constitutes a “putt” and defines the “green”, and what score distributions should look like.

I can sum up our area of common ground by saying that scores should vary on every hole, preferably with three distinct scores each significantly represented. The vast majority of such variance should be due to shot selection and execution and not due to luck.

I pulled together data from this year’s Masters and PGA Championship tournaments and have compared it to what I estimate scores at The Red Hawk will be for cashing competitors this year at The Players Cup. I also put into the spreadsheet a “normal” distribution of 16% birdies or better, 68% pars, and 16% bogeys or worse for each hole. To download the spreadsheet go to:
www.etherbinge.com/sva.xls (http://www.etherbinge.com/sva.xls)

Conclusions: I predict that for The Players Cup the average cashing pro will shoot 60.82 per round or -3 for 54 holes. I also predict that the cut line for the cash will be +4.

As to the distribution of scores: This year’s Masters and PGA averaged 16% birdies or better per hole, while I predict The Players Cup cashing pros will average 26% birdies or better. For pars per hole, The Masters averaged 61%, the PGA 63%, and I predict the cashing Players Cup pros will average 53%. For bogeys or worse, The Masters averaged 23%, the PGA 21% and I predict the cashing Players Cup pros will average 21%.

The predictions show that The Players Cup should be comparable to the golf majors for bogeys, but that the distribution is shifted to reflect more birdies and fewer pars. I believe that this is a weakness of disc golf in general and comes down to the fact that disc golf putting is easier compared to golf putting. Without reducing birdies by taking them out of the range of short to average throwers, the game needs to incorporate creative ways of bringing greater risk/reward situations into putting. I find tortoise-shell shaped “greens” like the one on Winthrop’s 1196 hole to be one good way of accomplishing this objective. As course design continues to evolve I look to see more ways in which the 3 putt can be brought into possibility without increasing the random luck factor.

As course design continues to evolve I look to see more ways in which the 3 putt can be brought into possibility without increasing the random luck factor.


I hope so, and I also hope that creative greens/pin placements will eventually take away the gimme status of <20' putts for our top pros.

I am curious since I've never played Winthrop, but could you expand on "tortoise shell shaped greens."

a green where the basketis on a ridge or hill, with missed putts potentially sailing far past the basket making comebacks just as risky. Also achieved by elevated baskets, but more prounced with these "tortoise shaped greens as the amount of drop off can be greater, it also creates more rollaways than flat ground with elevated pins.

IMO, changing the basket to make it a smaller target would do the most. This is tinkering with sacred ground and will probably not go over well with the majority. (Baskets are also the single largest expense on most courses)

Sloped greens are OK, but roll-aways are are random (therefore luck-inducing). Two equally bad putts are punished in very different ways with sloped greens, but are punished equally if the target area on baskets was reduced.

If you look at the basket specs, having a chain support is not necessary to meet PDGA standards for approved baskets. Remove all of the chains and hoata sanctioned event and see what happens.

No one comes to your event is what happens! :D

We have a different ratio of putts/green than in ball golf. That's just the way it is. You can make the target smaller to change that ratio, but then you help to eliminate the most exciting shots in disc golf, which is holing out from 100 feet or more as well as aces. You'll probably lose thousands of recreational players, who find that putting is already hard enough as it is, and for whom just one fairway ace or hole-in-one can hook them for life.

Take advantage of slopes and elevation changes to make for fast greens to add some challenge. Or place some hazards around greens. (although not within 30')

Quote:
"That's just the way it is. You can make the target smaller to change that ratio, but then you help to eliminate the most exciting shots in disc golf, which is holing out from 100 feet or more as well as aces. You'll probably lose thousands of recreational players, who find that putting is already hard enough as it is, and for whom just one fairway ace or hole-in-one can hook them for life.

Take advantage of slopes and elevation changes to make for fast greens to add some challenge. Or place some hazards around greens. (although not within 30')
Take advantage of slopes and elevation changes to make for fast greens to add some challenge. Or place some hazards around greens. (although not within 30') "



Yeah, I agree Lung !!! Making the Baskets smaller will only hurt the turnout of thousands of Rec players. I think putting to Baskets on slopes is a great challenge. It challenges your risk/reward tolerance and makes a two putt for 25 ft. not too bad.
Lets exhaust all the options before we make Baskets smaller.

On second thought, making a smaller target will not change the putting ratio much in a way that rewards strategy. However, directional targets might be more effective.

It is very easy to conceive of a sheild that you could easily snap onto the basket that would cover t1/4 or 1/3 of the perimeter, that could radically change DG strategy and reward accuracy, shot placement, and putting skills (and punish the lack there of).

You could fine-tune the intent of the hole in a similar way that BG moves the hole around the green from day to day. Imagine a 250' straight away hole with a 1/4 shield blocking the front of the basket. If you land short, only a very well executed hyzer putt will get you a birdie. If you go long and miss your comebacker, you are looking at a 4.

I can dream up some pretty nasty combinations of sloping greens and shields that would go a long way to spread scores by rewarding well executed strategy.

I might just need to play around with this in my winter league. :D

The slickest way to change the putting challenge on Mach 3s is to slide the small ring holding the outer chains to the top of the pole and secure it with twist ties. This can be done for events, then remove the ties and the baskets are back to normal for daily play. You can also just secure them for the higher divisions and not for the lower divisions who play that course in a different round.

Dave, do you remember Dr. Fred? He was prominent on rec.sport.disc and early versions of the Discussion board in the late 90s and early 00s. Dr. Fred came out with 'directional targets' and was pretty much laughed off the scene. They had bars in the way that would only allow putts to enter from a certain direction. Are you good enough to be able to land your disc on the left side of the basket from 350 feet out? Very few are. Should you have to lay up from ten feet away because you're on the wrong side of the basket? That's silly.

Maybe only the top 100 golfers in the world consider putting a simple concept from 25' in. For the rest of us mortals, putting is already hard enough. And I saw Barry Schultz miss several 25 footers at Pro Worlds a few weeks ago, so it's not automatic for anyone.

I think this is all eminating from better disc technology, people throwing farther, and limited land to put disc golf courses in. Maybe some older courses are now rendered into pitch-n-putts, but they are far from obsolete. New world class disc golf courses with a variety of challenges (besides just increased distances) are going in every year. Want to lose recreational players all across the country? Take away the chains and make putting that much harder.

Many older courses that are now rendered "pitch and putt" are still great practice courses for putters and mid ranges, speed golf, and most importantly: new players. I'm a strong proponent for creating championship courses that incorporate multi-shot holes, greater risk/reward, and more challenging putting greens, but I also believe that the majority of courses should be beginner-friendly. When there is enough land and capital it is possible to have both in one location.

As to our baskets: they are great! Minor changes can still be made to improve consistency of catching and durability, but that's it.

I definitely agree that some roll-aways add randomness. I like to have an area of sand or wood-chips for 5-8 ft. around a basket to stop discs that hit the cage from rolling away. I do think that if a basket is on the side of a slope and a disc comes in parallel to the slope it shouldn't roll away, but if the disc comes in at an angle to the slope then it should roll away.

For the rest of us mortals, putting is already hard enough.



I think you sum up a lot in this statement. Somehow, you have come up with an assumed standard as to what is hard enough and what is too hard. Its a safe bet that you do not want that assumption challenged and it is 100% certain that the majority resists change (that is human nature - not unique to DG'ers).

But, putting in BG is much more difficult than BG. BG is philosophically unique and interesting in that in driving they are about 2-3x the distance as DG, but in putting they have about a 1/6 distance to difficulty ratio compared to DG. The topic of this thread seems to me to be how we can skew our scoring to be more in line with their unique proportions.

I will guarantee that if you proposed to replace the small cup with a 12 inch hole to a BG'er you would get booed worse than Dr. Fred did. Likewise, if DG had started with directional targets like I am advocating, any suggestion 20 years later to make the target as easy as they are today would be booed out of town.

I will guarantee that if you proposed to replace the small cup with a 12 inch hole to a BG'er you would get booed worse than Dr. Fred did. Likewise, if DG had started with directional targets like I am advocating, any suggestion 20 years later to make the target as easy as they are today would be booed out of town.



Just like if ball golf had started out with a 2 1/2 inch hole, and someone suggested expanding it to 4 inches now.

But those are hypotheticals and where the sport is now is our reality. Feel free to follow your dreams; I'm just saying that I don't see directional targets or tougher targets taking over anytime soon for all the reasons I listed before. I get the feeling that the status quo and even the top pros are happy with our ratios the way they are. But if the PDDGA (Professional Directional Disc Golf Association) forms some day, I'll be happy to check it out.

I agree with you that most are content, but why not try to pioneer to try to make things even better?

Think about holes that are easy 2's or gimme 3's - you know, the tweener holes where all you need is a mediocre drive to give you an easy upshot and a tap-in 3. There are lots of this type of hole out there unfortunately.

If you were able to put a shield on the basket that would block one side or the other, it would cut the landing zone in half. It would also increase the risk-reward for putting. This would turn a pretty much useless/boring hole into something much more interesting and it would make the hole much more tournament-worthy as it would spread scores better by rewarding skill and punishing inaccuracy.

One problem I have with gimmicky things is that they feel kind of minigolf-ish. So, I think a real shield would give more legitimacy to the idea. If Innova (or others) manufactured a shield that would stylistically match their DisCatchers (baskets), I think things would "feel" more right/legit to more people.

Where did this concept of having a 30 foot clear zone around the basket start? Trees (or other ingeneous things as described by MP3) near the basket can vastly improve this game.

On one of our courses, there are two holes that are probably 200-220 with some trees in the fairway. However, one has three big trees spaced evenly, probably five feet around the basket. Instead of throwing a relatively easy shot and just worrying about the distance, you must now worry about placement, or be prepared to make a weird putt. The other hole has low-hanging branches right behind the basket. If you go deep, be prepared for a tough fifteen footer. These obstacles add much needed life to these holes.

Anyways, obstacles near the pin can be very useful. As always, the longer the shot to the pin, the larger the landing areas should be. Also, I love the concept of obstacles that don't totally shield the basket, but just make the putt very challenging.

James - what you are explaining is exactly the intent of the shields (that baskets directional) I am proposing. The 3 trees 5' from the basket reward either the skill of straddle putting and well placed shots (although depending on the exact size an placement of the trees you might be taking away too much of the landing zone to make it fair - but who sets the standard for what is fair?? :D)

On several courses I have played in FL, there are palmetto bushes near lots of the pins. They are 3-5' high and mess with my normal putting stroke. if I lived there, I would develop my turbo putt like many people there have done.

People seem cool with natural ideas like you are talking about, but have an aversion to gimmicky stuff that effectively accomplishes the same thing as the natural stuff.

Talking about unfair and gimmicky....this is a hole at recently installed Sugaw Creek here in Charlotte.

http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_14aa.jpg

I hate to be a critic of the local scene or of the course designer, but IMO (possibly not even worth the typical $0.02), it is unnecessarily punative in that it takes away too much landing zone and the landing zones can not be discerned from the tee pad (it is a 244' righty hyzer hole through a tunnel of trees - Be the Disc! video (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_14.mpg)).

One big tree in the front or on the right side would define a landing zone better. A basket shield would do the same thing.

People seem cool with natural ideas like you are talking about, but have an aversion to gimmicky stuff that effectively accomplishes the same thing as the natural stuff.


I'd agree, but I think we are in a transition phase in this sport. Designers are toying with new ideas to create a challenge worthy of real sport, and not surprising, some people are resisting and some are seeing the light. For example, some people feel that the rope at the USDGC is gimmicky, and some people may find other aspects of course design gimmicky, but I bet fewer people think that today than thought that four years ago.

I think one of the biggest challenges lies with the sport's leaders, as they will likely hear pleas to standardize course design. I just hope that they do their best to support innovative design challenges and rules that support innovative designs, or at least stay out of the way of those who do.

Where did this concept of having a 30 foot clear zone around the basket start? Trees (or other ingeneous things as described by MP3) near the basket can vastly improve this game.



For starters, there is the PDGA Disc Golf Course Design Standards (http://www.pdga.com/makecrse.php). Section 4 (Hole Notes) recommends that:

There should not be too many obstructions within 30 ft (10m) of each target.



I understand your point about adding life to short holes via the use of obstructed greens, but avoiding those holes in the course design in the first place is desirable. If your hands are tied, the Design Standards do go on to say that:

An obstruction should not be so imposing that a player can't at least try to putt by stretching sideways, throwing from a low stance or throwing over the top of or through any obstacles near a target.

Thanks for the response. I seriously disagree with the sentiment expressed by the blanket 30 foot zone, but totally agree with the sentiment that the obstacles near the pin should not prevent a difficult and creative attempt.

it is unnecessarily punative in that it takes away too much landing zone and the landing zones can not be discerned from the tee pad (it is a 244' righty hyzer hole through a tunnel of trees - Be the Disc! video (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/sugaw/sugaw_14.mpg)).





After watching that video, I agree completely. There are very few, if any, disc golfers in the world who can consisently throw a shot that negotiates the tunnel and then lands at the appropriate spot for an unobstructed putt. As is, a great deal of luck is involved.

If this was a short wide open hole, it would be fine. Smart players would know to throw a shot that lands in the best spot for an unobstructed putt.

IMO, course design is about variation. That hole (Sugaw #14) is OK because it is the only hole I can think of on that course that factors in that kind of luck. If there were 1-3 more of those type of holes that had small, ill-defined putting zone, it would be a bad course IMO.

Too many unnecessarily tight holes, or too many wide open holes is bad. A few "deuce or die" holes are great, but if more than 5-7 are that way, it makes the course boring.

Most of my thinking is aimed at course design that makes for good tournament courses. There are a ton of course elements that make for lots of oooooohs and aaaaaaahs when out with your buddies for a casual fun round, but if score separation is not predominantly determined by skill, those are not good elements to have in a tournament-worthy course.

244 foot hole, seems to me you could lay up twice and get an easy three. The obstructions make it a challenging two where getting into the woods may force a four. If it were me, I would either try a line drive with a TBird down the middle, or throw a mid range to the trees. Sure it may be lucky for a two, but I think a three should be expected.

Obstructed baskets should be considered in course design. A otherwise uninteresting tunnel shot turns into a difficult, amusing hole. I would just be a little dissapointed if the hole were 300+, tunnelled and had a guarded pin like that.

The 30 feet of free space around the pin as a steadfast rule would eliminate some of my favorite holes. We have an open fairway hole with an OB creek within 30 feet of the pin. The OB provides the risk-reward for the hole. Go at the basket, risk OB. Lay-up, no worries of OB.

Another hole that confounds me, but I secretly love, has the basket in the middle of a three very tight trees. There are two obvious landing zones that provide a clear path to putt. Overshoot the landing zones and your score pays dearly. There are some places that are easier to land in, but it makes it impossible to see the pin even when doing the splits in a straddle putt (believe me I know).

What was the point of this post? I have no clue.

The nature of putting in disc golf versus ball golf along with the difference in length between the two are what separate the sports. I see no reason to force disc golf into looking like ball golf. Until 100 foot putts become automatic for MA1 players, I see no reason to try and change the way we putt. If you want to see more courses that do punish bad putts, move to an area with mountain courses. Ski resort courses are money for this. With larger elevation changes, left with a 30 foot putt, even some of the best putters will choose to lay up.

On directional targets: if they were ever introduced (thank god that will never actually happen) they would eliminate a bunch of the most exciting shots in disc golf when a player "misses" the drive and threads a 50 footer throught the shule to save the par or birdie.

That brings me to another golf comparison: except for par 5 holes we never hear an announcer say, "that was a horrible drive, he'll have to really scramble to save his BIRDIE". When a tournament professional golfer hits a bad tee shot they are punished and have to scramble to save a PAR.

I know of way too many disc golf holes where a perfect drive leaves a drop-in birdie, a slightly less than perfect drive leaves a lag putt for a drop-in par, and a horrible drive also leaves a lag putt for a drop-in par. It's no wonder on some courses when the local intermediate player beats some of the touring pros.

On a professional tournament golf course, the local intermediate player (20+ handicap) will NEVER beat a touring pro. A top advanced amateur golfer (5-10 handicap) will rarely beat a touring pro that shot a poor round.

To paraphrase Barry after winning the '03 USDGC: we want people to realize we're not just playing frisbee in the park. These guys are athletes, they've got skills.

Tournaments like the USDGC have given our sport a jump start in the right direction and a movement has been created that continues to gather momentum. It's a great time to be a part of this sport!

On directional targets: if they were ever introduced (thank god that will never actually happen) they would eliminate a bunch of the most exciting shots in disc golf when a player "misses" the drive and threads a 50 footer throught the shule to save the par or birdie.



That is very small-minded thinking, IMO. Right now, as others have pointed out, trees within 5-10 feet already take away some of the potential excitement you talk about. If 1/4 of the basket is covered, greater than 3/4's of the putting area is still available to be used. 75% of the time your scenario comes into play, a directional basket will not hinder your excitement from happening.

In fact, if the back side of the basket has a shield on it, it will actually catch better since there will be no spit-throughs and it will catch hyzer putts that are slightly too long.


That brings me to another golf comparison: except for par 5 holes we never hear an announcer say, "that was a horrible drive, he'll have to really scramble to save his BIRDIE". When a tournament professional golfer hits a bad tee shot they are punished and have to scramble to save a PAR.



Wooded holes with right angle doglegs take care of this problem.


I know of way too many disc golf holes where a perfect drive leaves a drop-in birdie, a slightly less than perfect drive leaves a lag putt for a drop-in par, and a horrible drive also leaves a lag putt for a drop-in par. It's no wonder on some courses when the local intermediate player beats some of the touring pros.



I doubt a local intermediate EVER beats a touring pro on a par 65+ 18-hole DG course. There are that many more throws where a pro's skill will set him apart.

the trees don't take away the excitement, they help create it. by forcing playings to throw from their knees, stretch around obstacles, throw turbos over obstacles, etc., creativity and execution are rewarded.

If you want uni-directional targets you might want to save the $400 a basket costs and just buy big pieces of plywood, cut a two-foot diameter hole in it, lean it up against a tree, and paint a big picture of a clown on the wood. Shoot through the mouth and complete the hole!

For once in a blue moon I believe I'm on the side of the vast majority on this point.

I disagree - you are not in the vast majority. The vast majority has better reading comprehension skills than you. :D:p :p

Taking away 1/4 to 1/3 of the putting area of a basket as I am advocating does not make it uni-dimensional as you suggest.

Since you seem to be dead set against the kind of shield I am advocating, can you please explain to me how they reduce (or punish) creativity and execution.

Yeah, I am not so sure it is fair to compare par 72 ball golf courses to par 54 disc golf courses. Until there are more championship caliber courses, you will see touring pros having a hard time beating the snot out of locals.

It would be interesting to compare the scores of locals on a Executive size ball golf course with the scores of touring pros that have only played it once or twice.

Additionally, ball golf is generally more about keeping the ball in the middle of a wide open fairway that is very visible. Disc golf is often more about realizing the crazy flight path of all your discs and matching it to sometimes convoluted gaps in obstacles. The locals may be better able to identify the proper paths and have certain discs/throws dialed in on particular holes.

However, I am not even sure that it holds up to reality. How many Pennsylvania disc golfers were in the top ten at Pro Worlds? How many Arizona disc golfers were in the top ten at amateur worlds? While a touring pro may lose one round to a good local, it is bound to even out quickly with the better players winning.

the suggestion that you employ a ply-wood clown's mouth as a target was a farce. to interpret the "uni-directional" part as literal would violate the parallelism of the exaggerated metaphor.

the problem i have with the shield idea is the same issue i take with many mando's that are created to increase the difficulty of a hole: they are unnecessary and a better hole can always be accomplished through course design.

i still stand by my contention that the vast majority of disc golfers would oppose any shield-like modifications to the basket. i, however, am open-minded enough that if you set up a demonstration event with partially-shielded baskets i'd try my best to get up to play it. if you set it up on renny, i'd definitely want to play, since i've heard that course is way too easy normally.

However, I am not even sure that it holds up to reality. How many Pennsylvania disc golfers were in the top ten at Pro Worlds? . . . While a touring pro may lose one round to a good local, it is bound to even out quickly with the better players winning.



i agree. those are worlds courses and not the type of course i was referring to earlier. the trend at pro worlds is definitely towards courses that require players have more complete games in order to cash and that's a beautiful thing.

I think Carlton Howard was one of the early proponents of completely open 10m radius greens. Since then, I believe he's tempered his view to follow along the lines of the Basic PDGA Design Guidelines posted earlier by Jeff. His rationale, which is still relevent when looking at tree patterns near a potential pin placement, is that you want the player to have to judge the correct amount of energy to use on an upshot and land based on their skill and not by using a tree(s) or bush(es) behind the basket as backstops. I usually look for those situations and try to avoid having "easy" backstop elements behind the typical approach direction.

Otherwise, I'm all for pins that have scattered obstacles within the 10m circle as long as there's some type of putt that can hole out, even if it's unlikely or an extremely tricky stance/throw. I'll essentially walk every inch of the circle and make sure there's some body position and throw type that provides an air route to the pin. Now, if that nasty bush is outside 10m, I'm not averse to a situation where the player might have nothing but to throw a slider to get near the pin for a drop in.

Many of those who came to the Mid-Nationals got to experience the triple tree trunk pin. It's like the Sugaw hole that was pictured earlier but it only has three 8" tree trunks with the basket rim at about 5 feet positioned within them. There's 360 degree access to the pin but sometimes your putt will have to curve to hole out, and playing ricochets off a trunk are skillful, repeatable shots. In fact a player indicated that they had seen Barry practice ricochet shots. This is superior to any shield idea because the basket is still accessible from all directions but with some positions more desireable than others.

8"? Try 8' triple trunks, Pease Park, Austin. Roughly 220' (?) Tee is to the left, in the sunny area behind those 3 solid trees.
http://centxdglove.com/pease/images/pease6b.jpg

the problem i have with the shield idea is the same issue i take with many mando's that are created to increase the difficulty of a hole: they are unnecessary and a better hole can always be accomplished through course design.



I agree to an extent. But I disagree with you on the absoluteness of your distain for mando's. Sometimes artificial mando's are needed to add challenge where there may NOT be better land available. Likewise, IMO dirtectional baskets accomplished through shields can turn very ho-hum holes into interesting ones.

BG can move their hole around the green to create all sorts of varying upshot challenges (and resulting putting challenges). Shields whose placement is variable (and optional) would add this kind of intrigue to DG.


i still stand by my contention that the vast majority of disc golfers would oppose any shield-like modifications to the basket.



As I have said upthread, I too tend agree with with you. But, I think that is just human nature to resist change. Even change for the better. If the introduction of these sort of changes are handled correctly, I could see them catching on eventually.


i, however, am open-minded enough that if you set up a demonstration event with partially-shielded baskets i'd try my best to get up to play it. if you set it up on renny, i'd definitely want to play, since i've heard that course is way too easy normally.




:D:DRenny is not my idea of where to experiment. I have a little 18 tee, 3 basket course in my neighborhood (Cam Yards (http://home.earthlink.net/~ekbbbb1288/id3.html)). Fast greens and terrain are where the (slight) challenge comes from on this course. But, it is so open that bad shots (even most really bad drives) go pretty much unpunished. It seems to me like an ideal course to experiment on.

By necessity, it turned out to be a lefty friendly course. Shielding off the preferred lefty landing areas will give the course some "teeth" (hopefully boost it from an estimated SSA of 45 up to maybe 50)

the problem i have with the shield idea is the same issue i take with many mando's that are created to increase the difficulty of a hole: they are unnecessary and a better hole can always be accomplished through course design.


I'm not talking about a shield in the basket, I'm talking about something near the basket that makes landing on that side of the pin more difficult. If this "something" is natural or manmade makes absolutely zero difference to me. In fact, I can envision some tournaments using manmade objects and moving them between rounds to vary holes during the course of the tourney.

That brings me to mandos. What is wrong with mandos, natural or not? Any feature of a disc golf hole that makes me worry about the dire consequences of a non-luck based error is a good feature.

I play courses day in and day out where there often is little difference between a good shot, a bad shot and a terrible shot. I would welcome any design feature that fairly discriminates between these types of shots.

In the triple trunk case I'm talking about, they actually support the basket so the rim is about 56" above the ground.

This (tree trunks close by the basket) is superior to any shield idea because the basket is still accessible from all directions but with some positions more desireable than others.



Agreed, a shield can be too punitive when it takes too much of the putting zone away. But, a 1/4 shield would still allow for a well placed hyzer putt.

Natural is always better than artificial/gimmicky, but how would 3 telephone poles planted in exactly the same position as your trees go over on a course that is mostly devoid of trees?

Some of the terrain on BG putting greens is crazy gimmicky (I saw plenty in my 30 minutes of viewing the US Open this year). Take a hole placed close to a ridge where slightly long upshots or missed putts hit just slightly too hard roll far away with no realistic chance of a comebacker. It looks nice and natural, but it is as gimmicky as the shields I am proposing.

Or what about this?

http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/renny_9d.jpg

A 1/4 shield on the back side of a basket on open, flat ground would have essentially the same efffect as the dropoff behind this basket (but not nearly as pretty and memorable).

In the triple trunk case I'm talking about, they actually support the basket so the rim is about 56" above the ground.



Aha, gotcha...interesting.

I've thought about using three 3/4"-1" diameter pipes spaced 120 degrees apart rising from the outside of the basket (like extending three nubs upward) to hold up the chain support and eliminate the center pipe. This would make the chain area a little less accessible by requiring curving putts sometimes but still accessible from all sides. It would also eliminate any bouncebacks from hitting the center pipe, which to me is the ultimate flaw of our basket. When you cross the soccer or hockey goal line, the score is a done deal even if the ball/puck bounces back out.

That's a good idea. I suspect there are endless possibities for making this sport more difficult, while still remaining fair.

MP3, why the distinction between natural and gimmicky. Why is gimmicky so pejorative? The reality is that the natural terrain for almost every course does not provide for difficult greens. So, the only alternative is man-made ideas. Why label them as gimmicky. Are they anymore gimmicky than the man-made bunker or sloping green?

I'm not talking about a shield in the basket, I'm talking about something near the basket that makes landing on that side of the pin more difficult. That brings me to mandos. What is wrong with mandos, natural or not?





James, I agree with you on the objects near the basket. Hole 3 at Bart is a good example; if you blow by the basket you've got a tough obstructed come back putt.

As to mando's: the primary reason for using them in parks is "safety", but for the most part the beginner thrower who has the least control over his/her shots is likely to not know what a mando is or choose not to follow the rule anyway. Usually mandos can be avoided by moving a tee to force the shot that plays away from other holes and/or pedestrians.

Another drawback to mandos is that sometimes it is difficult to determine whether or not a disc passed on the correct side.

I am not totally against the use of mandos, but I believe that they should be used for directing flow for safety reasons, should be obvious and easily avoidable, and should be well defined.

The other type of mando is what I'd call a routing mando that's buried in the woods such that no one would miss it unless they were taking an inappropriate route. It's indirectly a safety mando but it's more to keep players from cutting across another hole or hacking thru an area where you don't want play. In the cases, I've used it at Highbridge, it might only occur to "animal" throwers to even attempt the alternate "route" out of curiosity but most players wouldn't consider it and their drives would never come close to where the mando trees are located. The mandos are likely not needed at all. But having watched high level "creativity" over the years, we decided to nip the safari shot concept on these holes before it was attempted.

MP3, why the distinction between natural and gimmicky. Why is gimmicky so pejorative? The reality is that the natural terrain for almost every course does not provide for difficult greens. So, the only alternative is man-made ideas. Why label them as gimmicky. Are they anymore gimmicky than the man-made bunker or sloping green?



I label them gimmicky basically to acknowledge the main objections from the majority for many of the skill-rewarding suggestions being posed here. I hope to show that gimmicky can be good for exactly the same reasons you state here.

For instance....most of BG's challenges are gimmicky - they just do not feel that way since they are usually done stylishly (and expensively).

I almost disagree on your mando stance.

While for the most part, the mando's I have seen are primarily for safety reasons. But the other hidden reason in those "safety" mando's is the fact that the routh which had been blocked presents a much easier route to the basket. So in fact you have a double benefit. 1, it makes the hole safer for other golfers and park users. 2, it adds challenge to the course.

You are right about beginners. The ones who cannot control thier discs are likely not going to know what the mando means. Mando's beyond safety are strictly for competition purposes. In casual rounds for rec players, if they do not like the mando, and can safely avoid following it, then by all means they should avoid it.

For our USDGC State Rep tournament next year. I will be setting up 3 additional mandos which are not normally there for normal play, and one happens to be a double mando gate at 300ft on a 370ft straight hole, the gap is almost 20ft wide and is cleared normally during regular tournament and casual play. Why the change for that tournament? 1, to make it harder. 2, to make it harder 3, to weed out the players who are not of the caliber to compete at the USDGC and represent our state well. Thats why.

I love mandos. In fact we make up mandos in casual play just to make the round more interesting. We also force players to throw an extremely overstable disc on RHBH on a dog leg right hole. Why, to make ourselves better. Mandos force shots to be made, in addition to making the parks safer for other people, so that they do not get struck in the head with a stray disc.