Saw this on another message board.

A group of disc golfers are setting up a temporary course at a park, and the following is known as the "Tower Hole."


Basically, the (pole)hole is about 100 feet behind the tee. However the tower is about 100 feet in front of you and it's a "mando" you can circle in either direction. Sounds easy enough but the tower is BIG and round.

I think Andrew was the only 3 on it all day :eek:




The hole is whatever you want it to be. You can go around the tower however you want. I chose to go the lefty hyzer route. Spike hyzer with a banshee, low, skip hyzer with a banshee, drop in putt with a banshee. It's just that easy........NOT!



http://www.esdgc.com/pics/tower.jpg

So: around a mandatory 100 feet in front of you, then a 200 foot approach shot back the way you came to the polehole.

What do you all think? Unorthodox, yes.

But coolest hole ever? :cool:Or gimmicky? :o

In tournament play, you'd probably have to make the mando going around only one of the sides in order to make the call. However, if the mando line goes straight back behind the tower, as long as you cross it once, that could be the way to play it either way.

I have a hole like this at Highbridge on our water loop which is six extra treacherous water holes that players have the option to play in addition to any of three other 18-hole courses that pass near it to make a 24-hole round. This hole plays straight downhill toward the lake about 150 feet away. There's a mando tree about 100 feet from the tee. You play clockwise around it then back up the hill to the pin which is only about 50' to your left from the tee. It's threeable as long as you don't short arm your drive being too worried about going long into the OB lake off the tee.

So, I certainly think holes like the one pictured can be done properly to make for a legit par 4 challenge. It's a good way to get a par 4 hole into a tight space.

Oooh, I'd like to see those lake holes Chuck. I know the courses are big but I didn't realize they extended all the way to Superior :D Can't wait until my next trip to High Bridge. :cool:

Highbridge is 20 miles from Lake Superior but on clear days you can see it from the top of the Highbridge hilltop. The "lake" where these water holes are located is a reservoir about 150 yards by 120 yards and can barely be seen in the upper left picture: www.proworlds2007.com/gr712.htm (http://www.proworlds2007.com/gr712.htm) The "V" mando hole starts about 250 feet to the left of the players in the picture playing #7 on Granite Ridge.

I can certainly appreciate the imagination, thinking outside the box, etc., but my vote would be "gimmicky". On the other hand, if that's the type of thing you enjoy, then it's all good.

This hole plays straight downhill toward the lake about 150 feet away. There's a mando tree about 100 feet from the tee. You play clockwise around it then back up the hill to the pin which is only about 50' to your left from the tee. It's threeable as long as you don't short arm your drive being too worried about going long into the OB lake off the tee.



I dunno, that sounds kind of gimmicky. I know I would be annoyed to have to walk down to the bottom of the hill and turn around and hike back up the same hill on the same hole. And, while I know some will surely object to the comparison, you'd never see this kind of thing in ball golf, where the tee and the green for that same hole lie within 50 feet of each other.

Personally, I think mandatories should be used only for safety reasons, such as hole#5 at Warwick to the long pin, which keeps people from playing over hole#4's teepad and the obvious safety hazard it would bring. In my opinion, the sign of a good mandatory is when it almost never comes into play. Such as in the example listed of hole#5 at Warwick. Mandatories that often come into play are usually gimmicky, imo.

And, while I know some will surely object to the comparison, you'd never see this kind of thing in ball golf, where the tee and the green for that same hole lie within 50 feet of each other.



Comparison doesn't bother me. Golf is our birth mother after all. But I agree on the other point. If I was at the tee and the pin was 50 feet to my right or left, or behind me as in the original example here, that would just #$*&$! me off, and I don't want to be #$*&$! off during golf any more than I am already when I play poorly.

IMO, you have to look at each throw as its own unique challenge. This tower hole and Chuck's H2O hole may seem gimmicky at first thought/sight, but in reality they are no more so than many dogleg holes that have a mando to keep you from "bushwacking" through trails in the woods.

I say the same thing about an 18 hole course I designed in our neighborhood (Cameron Yards (http://home.earthlink.net/~ekbbbb1288/id3.html)) that uses only 3 baskets. There are tons of criss-crossing fairways and lots of back-tracking to get to the tees, so it feels gimmicky. But I have had tons of people say that after playing it 4-5 times and getting used to it, each hole truly is unique and has its own unique challenge. This is possible due to cool terrain and good obstacles. It probably has an SSA in the 47-48 range. Not hard, but definitely respectable for a 4-5 acre course.

Criss-crossing fairways are another unrelated topic. They are fine for a private course being played by one group at a time. I have one at my house on about 5 acres with only three baskets. But for a public course? Absolutely no way. The conflicts should be obvious.

But here we're talking about holes where the pin and tee are next to each other and the player is required to go down and back. I personally don't see any comparison between that and a dogleg hole.

In the end of course, it's all what you want. If people come and play it, then it's probably good. If they don't, then a re-design may be in order.

IMO, you have to look at each throw as its own unique challenge. This tower hole and Chuck's H2O hole may seem gimmicky at first thought/sight, but in reality they are no more so than many dogleg holes that have a mando to keep you from "bushwacking" through trails in the woods.

I say the same thing about an 18 hole course I designed in our neighborhood (Cameron Yards (http://home.earthlink.net/~ekbbbb1288/id3.html)) that uses only 3 baskets. There are tons of criss-crossing fairways and lots of back-tracking to get to the tees, so it feels gimmicky. But I have had tons of people say that after playing it 4-5 times and getting used to it, each hole truly is unique and has its own unique challenge. This is possible due to cool terrain and good obstacles. It probably has an SSA in the 47-48 range. Not hard, but definitely respectable for a 4-5 acre course.



The standards can be lower for a neighborhood course, a temporary course or when space is limited. However, I think that spacious permanent courses & PDGA-sanctioned tournaments should avoid criss-crossing fairways, backtracking and mandatories. Highbridge is one of our premiere world class pay-to-play facilities with all the room in the world, and should be held to higher standards, imo.

The reason my "V" mando is in the six hole water loop and not on one of the courses is the more gimmicky nature of the hole but it has a high fun and pucker factor. Two of the other holes also have a high risk of sending a disc or two in the reservoir (which is relatively shallow but might require wading/swimming) and the sixth is similar to Morgan's basket in the shallow creek.

What I wanted to do is have these funky optional holes available to link into three other courses so no one would have to play them in PDGA competition but could play them for fun. Highbridge is first a pay-for-play recreational facility and getting people to come back for the fun and challenge is a key aspect of the design. But we hope players only lose discs when it's more their fault than being forced to play where the risk is high if they don't wish to.

One of the cool things about the tower hole is you maybe could throw a 'towering' MTA type shot all the way around it. In a way, these cutback mandos are rooted in our sport's history when you consider discathon came before disc golf and is fully comprised of technical skills throwing around and thru mandos.

....we're talking about holes where the pin and tee are next to each other and the player is required to go down and back. I personally don't see any comparison between that and a dogleg hole.



There is a very close comparison. It is just a dogleg with a sharper angle. IMO, a good dogleg hole in DG has a drive that must hit a landing zone fairly accurately. Then there is the approach heading away at around 90 degrees that also requires accuracy, distance or a combination of both.

Lots of (most) doglegs around here have a mando tree somewhere back in the bushes that is out of play unless you intentionally try to take a cheater route (from the tee or after shanking it into the woods). The reason for this is to keep people from taking the cheater route - this keeps the underbrush from getting damaged to a point where it is no longer thick enough to keep players from even think of taking that route. This is an acceptable type of mando IMO since it is unobtrusive.

Bottom line, a there-and-back or V-type hole has all the elements of a "real" dog-leg hole.

PS: My intention of bringing up my neigborhood course was that to "get it" you have to think outside the box of conventional DG. You have to do this too to understand the merit of a V-type hole. I also agree that where there is room enough to avoid these types of holes (and mandos for that matter), they should be avoided.

This is an acceptable type of mando IMO since it is unobtrusive.




We call them embedded mandos that no one should ever miss but prevent whacky routes thru other fairways from a safety standpoint. We have three of those at Highbridge which most never see but they are indicated on signs to prevent surprises.

Getting back on topic: I think USDGC hole 4 is pretty unorthodox: Drive that flirts with a blind OB "pond" followed by an up-n-over approach over a ring of Leland Cypress trees. Video of up-n-over (http://www.charlottedgc.com/usdgc/russell_4dz_1014.wmv)

We call them embedded mandos that no one should ever miss but prevent whacky routes thru other fairways from a safety standpoint. We have three of those at Highbridge which most never see but they are indicated on signs to prevent surprises.



That's exactly what I'm talking about - mandos to prevent people from charging through other fairways and creating safety hazards and possibly defeating the intended design of a hole. The only mandatories that should exist are embedded mandatories, imo.

Another good example is hole#18 at Warwick. Playing the 900-foot Blue-to-Blue configuration, one could throw a drive off the blue tee, which after escaping the tunnel, turns hard right and passes into the open area by the Blue polehole of hole#15. From there, it's not too far past the silver polehole of hole#15 uphill to the blue basket of hole#18. As such, there is a mando on a cedar tree to the right of the Silver tee of hole#18, and shots must pass to the left of this tree; failure to do so results in shooting three from the drop zone, the silver tee. This mando almost never comes into play.

Hole 10 on the other hand is a weird embedded mando since you can go over the top and have to make a judgment call. If you couldn't go over the top, it would be more like the intent of an embedded mando simply to make sure unsafe or "abnormal" routes aren't pursued.

Hole 10 on the other hand is a weird embedded mando since you can go over the top and have to make a judgment call. If you couldn't go over the top, it would be more like the intent of an embedded mando simply to make sure unsafe or "abnormal" routes aren't pursued.



Don't get me started on that hole. On possibly the best disc golf course in the world, it's my least favorite hole. On what is supposed to be a pro par four hole, players score deuces by throwing that high anhyzer. It defeats the intended design and play of the hole, and the mandatory should be adjusted accordingly to prevent it. I agree 100% that there should be an embedded mando simply to make sure that route isn't pursued.

Only a couple dozen players in the world can clear that huge anhyzer on #10. At the 2006 Classic, most of the world's best chose to play for the conservative 3. Even most (all?) of those who went huge anny ended up taking the 3.

That huge anhyzer shot is not in play for 99.9% of the players who play there, but it sure is fun to watch.

Likewise, I've seen Brinster go over the top on #7 B-S, with a huge hyzer over the tree line. Also not in play for 99.9% of golfers, but really cool to watch. Arguably, this is not the intended route either.

Likewise, I've seen Brinster go over the top on #7 B-S, with a huge hyzer over the tree line. Also not in play for 99.9% of golfers, but really cool to watch. Arguably, this is not the intended route either.



The course designers had conversations about people taking that route when the hole was designed. Big arms actually throw the big hyzer on #7 Blue-Blue as well. I think the point is not that people are taking something other than the "intended route" on hole#10 Blue-Blue but that it's a route that is significantly less total distance, and greatly affects the scoring average and par for the hole. On hole#10 Blue-Blue, think about how much distance it chops off the hole and how throwers have pretty much a drop-in three if they throw the high anny and make the mandatory. It basically makes the hole a par 3 instead of a pro par four for those throwing the conventional route. Whereas on on hole#7, throwing the big hyzer is not the most direct route to the basket and actually adds more distance to the hole.

If you want another example, there's hole#12. When the course first went in, playing Silver-Silver, everyone took the direct route through the opening in the woods and over the cliff to the Silver polehole. Then Brinster starting throwing a big hyzer bomb over top everything, and everyone followed suit. It may add more distance to the hole, but it makes the opportunity for deuce easier, and more importantly takes the OB wall hazard on the left of the polehole out of play. But it doesn't significantly change the par or scoring average on the hole.

Think about the mandatory on hole#5. If you allow people to play over the tee of hole#4, you add a safety hazard, significantly reduce the total distance of the hole, and make the hole a par three instead of the pro four it is intended to be. That's why there is an embedded mandatory there.

Isn't the mando on 10 BB about preventing people from throwing over 14 Blue tee? THAT would be significantly shortening 10BB. Even I might be able to duece it with that route. :D

I agree that many of the mandos are primarily for safety (ie. #5).

Its cool to know that the big hyzers were a part of the intended design (ie. #7). They sure are fun to watch!

risk reward my friends, risk reward.

I don't consider this hole gimmicky. I think we have to separate ball and disc golf when it comes to the characteristics of the target object's movement. A ball flies relatively straight and rolls. A disc can fly straight AND in large or small curves (and rolls, etc.). This tower hole invites the golfer to use the tremendous curved flight characteristics of the disc and, therefore, IMO is well suited for disc golf.

In 1982 when I was introduced to disc golf in college, we played with Ultimate discs on a target course. Some of the best holes included mondos that challenged our best disc skills. We need to remember that this game is about the multitude of ways a disc can fly and courses should challenge us to use a variety of throwing skills and flight characteristics.

So, all that to say...I think I like the concept of this hole!

It's definitely a mondo mando... :D

Now I know making a direct comparison between DG and BG can be a bit dicey here on the message boards, but I couldn't help but think about this thread as I read the sports pages today. Apparently Tiger Woods has been quoted as refering to the 17th hole of the TPC Sawgrass (the island green) as "gimmicky". :)

nanook

Now I know making a direct comparison between DG and BG can be a bit dicey here on the message boards, but I couldn't help but think about this thread as I read the sports pages today. Apparently Tiger Woods has been quoted as refering to the 17th hole of the TPC Sawgrass (the island green) as "gimmicky". :)

nanook


Compare away! :D

Well, I thought it was interesting to read about PGA players feelings about TPC Sawgrass #17. The article also included a few of the horror stories about legendary blow-ups on this hole during TPC. However, several of the players said that while some may dread playing the hole, they know it makes for great drama for the spectators. The viewing audience loves to watch that hole being played. Personally, it gave me a bit of perspective on DG. Next time I approach what I previously thought of as a "gimmicky" DG hole, I might try to imagine what a prospective spectator might get from watching it being played.

nanook

His main complaint is where it lies in hole order. He feels that a hole like that should be earlier in the round, not the second to last hole. He doesn't think a gimmmicky hole should be at a critical point of the round. I agree. It should be at a point in the round where a player can make up for the strokes lost on that hole.

I believe it's much better to have holes where scoring swings might occur near the end of the round. If the holes where everyone typically gets the same score are near the end, it doesn't give those fighting to catch the leader some chances. No wonder Tiger, who typically holds a lead well, wouldn't want swing holes near the end.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that the 17th at the USDGC emulates the 17th at Sawgrass.

The only mandatories that should exist are embedded mandatories, imo.


I agree.

On the topic of the crazy super-routes that are sometimes employed to get eagles: I think it's great to have some of these options on a course as long as the risk of missing the shot makes bogey a possibility. If the guy that takes that route always makes eagle or birdie, then there's not enough danger involved.

Chuck:

I agree that I definitely want to have a hole or holes with wide scoring swings near the end of a round. However, I'd prefer that these wide scoring swings result from a good hole design with multiple risk-reward scenarios, multiple flight path options, and lots of disc selection and execution decisions as opposed to do-or-die holes like #17 at the TPC at Sawgrass this past weekend.

I'm not too enthusiastic from a design standpoint about a hole (ball golf or disc golf) where the top players are dished out ridiculous amounts of punishment like at Sawgrass #17. To me it's way too punitive. Those holes are fine if they have an option to play safe and in exchange for playing safe and minimizing risk you end up with a slightly larger number than the player that assumes risk and pulls off the correct shot and scores a lower number. One doesn't really have that option at Sawgrass #17. You go for the green on your drive and you nail it or you don't. There's almost no grey area and no alternate risk-reward scenarios.

Dan Doyle
warwick, NY

I believe players are allowed to chip to the drop area (or anywhere short of the water) then across the pond. Remember that water isn't OB in ball golf and I doubt they've made it a requirement to land on the green or be forced to go to the drop zone. They might get some ridicule in the clubhouse but several might have made quite a few more thousand $$ in the process.

It's the way some of our island greens have been done that are the problem where no bailout for a relatively safe 3 has been provided.

Chuck: Thank you for using the term "relatively safe" instead of "easy" par. I hate holes where the "safe" play is a no-brainer easy shot followed by another followed by a tap-in.

On a tough par 3 golf hole, the player that plays totally safe and lays up short of the green still has to get up and down and the shot's never a gimmee.

As to TPC #17, when the wind is down there is plenty of room on the green for a pro to land a wedge/9 iron. It's when they get aggressive with the tougher pin placements that they go in the water. (Or when they hit a sweet shot, but their father-in-law gave them the wrong club :eek:) Of course, as was demonstrated this week, when the wind's tough the hole's not very fair.

It's the way some of our island greens have been done that are the problem where no bailout for a relatively safe 3 has been provided.



EXACTLY!!!!!!

I have NO problem with island greens, only the fact that there is no option other than to go for the green.

That is just dumb and NOT in the spirit of a game where making decisions is one of the most important parts.

An island green like 17 at USDGC does nothing but take the choice and thought out of the players head.

I've never played USDGC's hole 17, but I've seen it played on video.

The hole does not offer risk/reward options, it simply requires the thrower to execute. While some holes of course should give the thrower R/R options, I also feel some holes should also require players to execute a certain shot.

The problem I would see with the hole is how variable wind could make the hole much tougher/easier for players depending on his/her tee time. Essentially not everyone is playing the same hole when it comes to a precision accuracy hole with substantial wind. With that in mind, I agree the hole should be earlier in the round. If wind did not come into play (I've heard all of Wintrop Gold is windy) keep the hole towards the end..It will will break a poor thrown player's round. But since luck is involved with regards to the wind, IMHO the hole should be earlier in a round to give a player a chance to come back.

I thought that Harold had increased the width of the island away from the basket last year to offer an easier landing area, but toughter putt.

He did. But you still were forced to land in the larger green area. Ball golf has no forced shots that might result in a penalty if missed. The tee shot to the island green on TPC 17 is optional but virtually all take it.

Interesting that some ball golf commentators indicate that hole 17 is the reason the Players Championship will never become a major.

I did check and players can play short of the water to the drop zone or even long and come back. Apparently, in the "Worst Avid Golfer" competition, a player took a 66 after shooting 27 balls in the water. The officials then asked him to take out a putter and work his way around the water's edge and across the walkway to finish the hole.

Fun stats on that 66!

While objection to the "gimmicky" nature of #17 may have something to do with the lack of major status, the big reason is that the "fan friendly" stadium golf concept has been a little too successful and a drunk-fest atmoshphere pervades. (although it'll never touch the "fraternity party" in Arizona, particularly when T.W. pleases the crowd with an ace!)