I was play testing a hole yesterday with my portable practice basket and ran into some issues with the hole. It is designed to be a Par 4 dogleg hole that is moderately to heavily wooded with the first throw going straight to a landing zone about 280' up the fairway. The second shot then goes uphill and directly between two mature trees to an elevated basket about 150' away. With the elevation change the hole plays with an effective length of roughly 460 ft. The hole is basically shaped like an upside down and backwards "L".

The problem. While testing I had several shots that being thrown RHBH hyzered out early, falling short of the intended landing zone. Now while the woods on that side of the fairway are fairly thick, I was still able to get up and over the underbrush and through the trees. Basically, I was able to cut the corner on the dogleg and cheat the hole!

Short of waiting until the underbrush grows thick enough of to keep this from happening what can I do to protect the original design?

My first thought is to add a mandatory to a tree on the left side of the fairway. Mandatory => of x tree on left side of fairway.

Is there a better way to solve this issue, or is a Mandatory the way to go? How far down the fairway, or how close to the dogleg can I put the mandatory and still be fair?

I would mark a tree maybe a third of the way down the left side of the second leg, ideally 5-10 feet off the fairway in the woods, as the mando to be played to the right of it. This way, it doesn't become a factor for players who play the regular fairway. And for those who cut into the woods early on the left, they can't really hack thru straight at the pin but have to either pitch back out or try to hack thru to the second leg but still quite a ways back from the pin.

Thanks Chuck, this is exactly the kind of information I was hoping to get.

I would also keep in mind that if this a course with a large percentage of casual players, expect that the mando will often be ignored and a shortcut path will develop over time. Its the nature of disc golfers. Put a tee on one end and a basket on the other and a path will eventually be cleared between the two. Especially as the dogleg breaks left, resulting in a high percentage of throwers (i.e. right-handed back hand throws) having a high frequency of landing in an area that shortcuts the dogleg.

I would also keep in mind that if this a course with a large percentage of casual players, expect that the mando will often be ignored and a shortcut path will develop over time. Its the nature of disc golfers. Put a tee on one end and a basket on the other and a path will eventually be cleared between the two. Especially as the dogleg breaks left, resulting in a high percentage of throwers (i.e. right-handed back hand throws) having a high frequency of landing in an area that shortcuts the dogleg.

tkieffer, do you think there's any other way to avoid this?

I had the thought of putting a fence of sorts up along the left side of the fairway using some of the fallen and dead trees from the area to discourage people from taking the "cheater" route.

No, I'm afraid I don't beyond minimizing traffic on the course. If the number of people cutting the dogleg short creates damage faster than it can regenerate, paths and trails are inevitable.

On a positive, for leagues and so on you can still force use of the dogleg through the mando as described.

If the tee pad hasn't been poured on this hole, consider moving the tee forward unless this is intended to be a gold level hole. The PDGA design guidelines (see bottom of page):
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGASkillGuides2009.pdf
indicate that 295 ft is the maximum open throw to a dogleg for gold level and for blue level it's 260 feet. Since this sounds like a wooded corridor, the design distances should be a little shorter. If players of the intended skill level are not consistently reaching the landing zone with reasonably good throws, it's too far from the tee.

If the tee pad hasn't been poured on this hole, consider moving the tee forward unless this is intended to be a gold level hole. The PDGA design guidelines (see bottom of page):
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGASkillGuides2009.pdf
indicate that 295 ft is the maximum open throw to a dogleg for gold level and for blue level it's 260 feet. Since this sounds like a wooded corridor, the design distances should be a little shorter. If players of the intended skill level are not consistently reaching the landing zone with reasonably good throws, it's too far from the tee.

Hi Chuck,

The measurements were just from what I paced off roughly. I am aware of the PDGA skill guide standards and have a copy with me at all times. It's a fantastic resource. :)

I'll let you know what the actual GPS measurements are once I get those.

These are the long tee measurements, from the short tees it's only about 200 ft or so and it removes several of the trickier obstacles.

My goal is two have 2 teepads and 2 pin placements per hole. Long pad to long baskets = Gold, long pads to short pins = Blue, short pads to long pins = white, short pads to short pins = red.

This probably won't be possible on every hole, I recognize that. The main design is geared towards the Blue level.

Just pointing out something to be considered to reduce potential problems especially when you're concerned about players attempting to cut thru the woods.

I appreciate the advice. I'll definitely consider shortening the hole if it measures out to be that long with the GPS.

The guidelines just get you started. Then, we (designers) should always test layouts in the real world to see if they plays well and make adjustments where needed. Good luck!

This discussion sounds very similar to the par 4 sixth hole at Deer Lakes Park near Pittsburgh. The course designers chose to create an OB bunker off the fairway, but near the dogleg. This has discouraged players from attempting crazy, over the top and through the woods shots that several players might attempt if the OB was not there. If one properly executes his/her tee shot toward the designed landing zone (approximately 230" from the long tee), the fairway dogleg is not a difficult target to hit. If one decides to try to shave the corner via a couple of skinny routes through the trees, the OB bunker suddenly becomes more of a factor.

If one properly executes his/her tee shot toward the designed landing zone (approximately 230" from the long tee), the fairway dogleg is not a difficult target to hit. If one decides to try to shave the corner via a couple of skinny routes through the trees, the OB bunker suddenly becomes more of a factor.

That sounds like another interesting alternative. So from the landing zone, how far and tight is the upshot on that hole? Is that a par 4 where the 2nd shot is actually the more difficult one?

Another thought I had had on this particular hole was to do something like that. Shorten up the first throw so there wouldn't be as large a temptation to shave it off and then extend the pin placement back and to the right, making it a double dogleg that would require a tricky RHBH anhyzer for the upshot.

Tim Kieffer is completely correct about the effects of time and chucker* abuse. I think good course design takes into account the fact that over time heavy use will widen fairways and create more direct routes. If this is going to turn a good par 4 into a no-birdie 3, leave room in the course design to lengthen the hole when the day comes. If you want to preserve a dogleg, you pretty much have to incorporate a mando.

I think if you want to design a course against chucker abuse, you have to make the course so long and hard that chuckers just won't play it. No short tees. Python pits. Mine fields that are clearly marked o.b. :D

Oh, here's a tip related to chucker abuse that has nothing to do with preserving course design: the farther you put your tee signs from the tees, the less vandalism you'll have. If you can put the tee signs somewhere visible from the tee, but 40 or 50 feet away, chuckers won't walk an extra 40 or 50 feet to do senseless vandalism.

*I'm using the term chucker because it rhymes with the word I'm thinking.

Bruce, you're making me laugh! Seriously that is just too much. : )

Today I was walking a guy from the parks and rec department through a few of the holes I've drafted and we got to the dog-leg hole and I mentioned where I wanted to put mando's and why. And he goes... "What's a Mando?" So I explain it and he's like... "Well you can do what you want, but I'm gonna cut through here and try to get a 3!"

That's when I realized that its going to be almost impossible to keep people from widening the lanes and and cutting corners... : (

But yes, I do already have a backup plane for another basket placement once this one wears out.

I think if you want to design a course against chucker abuse, you have to make the course so long and hard that chuckers just won't play it. No short tees. Python pits. Mine fields that are clearly marked o.b. :D


This reminded me of a conversation I had with my buddy who came out to play test a few holes. He's a lefty so I brought him out to see a few of the ideas and get his input. When I asked him for ideas on protecting the fairways and designs and whatnot I was expecting something about larger landing areas for lefties or something like that. This was his response...

Jesse: "How long is hole one right now"

Me: "Roughly 290 from pro tees, 220 from Am and slightly uphill with an elevated green at the end"

Jesse: (Waving hands in air) "Scrap it. Here's what you're gonna do to protect the course. What's the longest hole currently in existence?"

Me: (shrugs) "I don't know, probably hole 18 at Flyboy Aviation, that's 1600 feet"

Jesse: "So here's what you do, you make hole one a 1700 foot wooded corridor shot with a big sign in front that says 'WELCOME TO HELL'. Then on the tee-pad you have written 'Don't kid yourself' and as you continue down the fairway more and more signs saying 'You can't handle this,' 'It's not to late to turn back' 'Leave before you lose all your dignity' 'You're a joke' etc. You get the idea. That'll keep them off the course.

Me: (doubled over with laughter) "Wow... I think that would do it, I'll just run that by the Parks and Rec Dept."