2 tee 2 basket ?

[duckychucky]

The only course I have played with 2 tees and 2 baskets on each hole (blackfalls vt, my fav all time course) had the layout as short tee to short basket= red, short to long=white, long to short=blue and long to long=gold. So for the most part, the distance (and difficulty) between tees was more than the distance between baskets, so that blue was longer than white. However on some holes the basket positions had the greater difference so the white layout was longer.

Is this the norm for dual tee dual basket courses?

Or do some courses have the distance between baskets greater than distance between tees so that blue layout is short to long and white is long to short?

Do any course mix it up so that if you are playing blue some times you are long to short and other holes short to long, whichever happens to be greater?

This last option would make the most sense on hilly courses where choices for tee positions may be limited due to terrain, but it would also be the most confusing.

Just curious...

 

[bradharris]

Is this the norm for dual tee dual basket courses?

There is no standard or norm.

Well done dual-tee/dual-basket courses (Black Falls definitely falls in this category) will present very different layouts so that each of the four ways to play a hole is unique. It's not just about making sure one layout is always longer than the other. And sometimes, the shorter configuration can be a tougher shot than the longer.

Generally what you find as a good rule of thumb is that the long tee to long basket is the toughest (gold level) layout, short to short is the easiest (red level) and the two intermediate layouts give you the option of where you want to be challenged. The long tees will challenge you more on your tee shot while the long pins will make finding the green more challenging.

 

[duckychucky]

I'm a fan of designing to the pdga par guidelines and think that a layout that blue and white flip flop, short to long, long to short, makes the most sense, so that blue is always the harder and both layouts get some of the harder greens and some of the harder tees. just probably too confusing for most players unless you had detailed "next tee" signs that showed where to go for all four color layouts.

 

[bradharris]

I'm a fan of designing to the pdga par guidelines and think that a layout that blue and white flip flop, short to long, long to short, makes the most sense, so that blue is always the harder and both layouts get some of the harder greens and some of the harder tees. just probably too confusing for most players unless you had detailed "next tee" signs that showed where to go for all four color layouts.

I had to read this a couple times, but I think I get what you're saying. Essentially, you want, on every hole, for the blue layout to be longer than the white. So on a hole-by-hole basis, the longer between the short-to-long and long-to-short is the blue layout.

It's doable for sure. Maple Hill does a great job of communicating the various layouts. I'm not sure if blue is always longer than white, but it's certainly possible.

I don't really think there's a right or wrong way to do it. In the case of Blackfalls or Borderland, I don't think anyone really thinks of the layouts as "blue" or "white." They're simply "short-to-long" or "long-to-short." Whereas Maple Hill clearly defines colored layouts with tees and baskets all over the place.

 

[duckychucky]

I had to read this a couple times, but I think I get what you're saying. Essentially, you want, on every hole, for the blue layout to be longer than the white. So on a hole-by-hole basis, the longer between the short-to-long and long-to-short is the blue layout.

Exactly. You said it better than me. Although, i would make the exception on a couple holes when the shorter layout is the harder shot of the 2, than it should be the blue.

 

[jrawk]

Distance isn't the only factor. Don't forget factoring in OB, dog legs, elevation, fast greens, and other hazzards. That is why some "shorter" hole configurations may breach into a tougher color code. It's rare, but it does happen.

Edit: for some reason when i read the OP, the previous replies did not show up.

 

[Billipo]

I like two tees to vary distance. Two pins with one having a trickier green. Could be more protected or potential for run away on misses. Difficulty isn't all about distance. Configure like Warwick ...color to color.

 

[duckychucky]

I like two tees to vary distance. Two pins with one having a trickier green. Could be more protected or potential for run away on misses. Difficulty isn't all about distance. Configure like Warwick ...color to color.

Just looking at Warwicks scorecard reinforces what I'm talking about. Sometimes the difernce in tees is greater and sometimes the difference in baskets is greater so that the difference in length of long to short (lime green?) verses short to long(purple?) is only 60 ft, 6,727ft vs 6,787ft. If it was layed out so that the longer of the two was one layout and the shorter the other you would get 7,164 ft and 6,350 ft layouts that would each get to play some of the harder tees and some of the harder greens. That 814 ft difference isnt huge, but averages 45 ft per hole. For some players that could make the difference between having to hit a long putt or a gimme layup extra stroke (NAGS).

Of course you could play any layout you want casually, but having the course officially set up to make a bigger difference in the middle layouts would give more players an opportunity to play a course that is designed for their skill level.

 

[duckychucky]

Oops double post

 

[bradharris]

Of course you could play any layout you want casually, but having the course officially set up to make a bigger difference in the middle layouts would give more players an opportunity to play a course that is designed for their skill level.

The problem with this approach is that not all designers are intentionally trying to differentiate skill levels with the middle layouts. In many cases, it could simply be that they're making use of two natural pin locations and then putting in a pair of tees that give some interesting looks at the hole.

Keep in mind that disc golf course designers have to let the land dictate the layout to an extent. It's not like ball golf where significant landscaping is done to create a course.

Because of the nature of our game compared to ball golf, our course designers get a lot of freedom to be very creative in how they set up a course. I would hate to see that creativity stifled by trying to hit specific distance benchmarks.

 

[JC17393]

The problem with this approach is that not all designers are intentionally trying to differentiate skill levels with the middle layouts. In many cases, it could simply be that they're making use of two natural pin locations and then putting in a pair of tees that give some interesting looks at the hole.

Keep in mind that disc golf course designers have to let the land dictate the layout to an extent. It's not like ball golf where significant landscaping is done to create a course.

Because of the nature of our game compared to ball golf, our course designers get a lot of freedom to be very creative in how they set up a course. I would hate to see that creativity stifled by trying to hit specific distance benchmarks.

This is dead on. But I'd also add that often designers are limited by what land they can use, particularly in a park setting. Courses have to be fit into the space designated and take into account other park activities. I've seen plenty of courses where you can look at a hole and say "this would be perfect if they could move this basket 50 feet left and back" but doing so would encroach on a walking path or a playground or a ball field or who knows what.

Also, with 2 basket, 2 tee set-ups like Warwick, the design priority is usually setting up the short to short and the long to long layouts to best fit their target skill levels. The middle layouts (long-short, short-long) are simply by-products that aren't necessarily planned out in advance or aimed at a particular level. To try to adjust those layouts is going to directly affect the set up of the long and short layouts, perhaps detrimentally so (as in, losing the challenge intended).

Also, in our game, judging purely by distance is foolhardy. There are so many challenges that can be incorporated into a hole design for which pure distance is unnecessary. I've played courses where the "hard" layout of a hole is actually the shorter option because the short option is tighter or incorporates a turn or elevation change or a tricky green that adds more challenge than an extra 50-75 feet would.

 

[duckychucky]

The middle layouts (long-short, short-long) are simply by-products that aren't necessarily planned out in advance or aimed at a particular level. To try to adjust those layouts is going to directly affect the set up of the long and short layouts, perhaps detrimentally so (as in, losing the challenge intended).

I think you missed the point. You dont adjust the tees or baskets at all. Your shortest and longest stay the same. You simply adjust scorecard and tee signs to make one of the middle layouts significantly longer than the other. Whether it is planned out or a "by-product" you have the opportunity to have 4 very different length layouts red, white, blue and gold OR red, gold and 2 whiteish blues.

Also, as stated before, generally, the long tee has the harder line (not just longer) and the longer pin position is usually more challenging (not just longer) so if the middle layouts switch tees based on length, than each of the middle layouts gets some of the harder baskets and some of the harder tees. The classic way makes one layout get all the hard tees and the other all the hard greens. This alone is a good reason to alternate them even if you ignore the length argument.

 

[bradharris]

I think you missed the point. You dont adjust the tees or baskets at all. Your shortest and longest stay the same. You simply adjust scorecard and tee signs to make one of the middle layouts significantly longer than the other. Whether it is planned out or a "by-product" you have the opportunity to have 4 very different length layouts red, white, blue and gold OR red, gold and 2 whiteish blues.

Also, as stated before, generally, the long tee has the harder line (not just longer) and the longer pin position is usually more challenging (not just longer) so if the middle layouts switch tees based on length, than each of the middle layouts gets some of the harder baskets and some of the harder tees. The classic way makes one layout get all the hard tees and the other all the hard greens. This alone is a good reason to alternate them even if you ignore the length argument.

This is starting to sound like the "what is par" question. Play it how you want, if you want to play a layout which uses the longest intermediate distance, do it. Most courses aren't going to go through the extra effort to define layouts that way, but that doesn't mean you can't play your rounds like that.

 

[Billipo]

Utilizing double pins instead of multiple tee boxes is an option not very exploited, but can add be a better alternative for multiple skill levels for a hole than multiple tees. Can also save space in limited area parks.

There are few park properties which can effectively provide four levels of skill (Red, White, Blue, and Gold) in one course. Yah I know there are exceptions.

The thougths I have for 2 tee / 2 pin courses.

Develop course considering three skill levels ... red/white/blue or white/blue/gold

Two options I would consider

1.) Either be consistent throughout the course...

second tees set up primarily for added length and second pins for added technical skills.

Short tees to easier pin - lowest skill level
Short tees to technical pin - mid skill level
Long tees to technical pin - highest skill level

2.) or color each tee and pin appropriately with a skill color.

mix and match.

As the player negotiates the course follow your color ignore the other colors. I have used this technique at Pymatuning. There is a color desginator at the tee sign. Scorecards and tee signs indicated if there are multiple tees or multiple pins. Including to which pin your skill is to play to. Baskets also have colored tape on pole for each skill level that plays to that pin.

for the course example I mentioned - What freaks people out is that the number of tees and number of baskets vary throughout the course. Many players can not understand the concept of just play to your color.

Tee sign with instructions included. Second Option style. Hope that helps.

 

[DavidSauls]

Also, in our game, judging purely by distance is foolhardy. There are so many challenges that can be incorporated into a hole design for which pure distance is unnecessary. I've played courses where the "hard" layout of a hole is actually the shorter option because the short option is tighter or incorporates a turn or elevation change or a tricky green that adds more challenge than an extra 50-75 feet would.

Good point.

There is another situation in which, on a given hole, the harder layout may be shorter than the easier one. It's when the par* changes. You can half, say, a par-3 from the Gold layout, but back up the tee or pin to create a par-4 for the white layout.

Stoney Hill doesn't have color-coded skill-level layouts, but even for the same skill level we have a hole where, on the long layout, it's a tough Par-3; but on the short layout, the hole is 80' longer to a different basket, and becomes a Par-4.

* - sidestepping the "par" debate, just thinking of the way the hole is expected to be played, without creating a NAGS.

 

[magictenor1]

I have never seen a course with multiple pins IN USE. The courses I have played with 2 pin positions move their baskets. Not a big fan of this since it eliminates options. Multiple tees are much better in my opinion when you don't have the resources to put more than 1 set of pins in the ground. Davidsauls makes a great point about difficulty according to par which in my opinion is the only way to measure difficulty.

 

[Stardoggy]

Borderlands was the first course I had seen with 2 baskets in (and then Pyramids later that day), and I thought it was brilliant. Of course the cost is higher, but done correctly, it's a fantastic way to appeal to many skill levels at the same time. Love it, and wish it were done around me.

Is it just a NE thing at this point?

 

[optidiscic]

I actually think the superior option is to provide a longer more difficult course and on the same land adjacent build a very fun recreation friendly short course......both can have dual tees that change the shot on each hole....this spreads players out...preserves fairways better and actually services the public better than cramming multiple baskets on 1 course

A good fun little 18 hole rec course takes up about as much room as 3 holes on a championship course....this is a worthy endeavor and I much prefer it as a better use of space

2 baskets and 2 tees is actually not all its cracked up to be

 

[sidewinder22]

I actually think the superior option is to provide a longer more difficult course and on the same land adjacent build a very fun recreation friendly short course......both can have dual tees that change the shot on each hole....this spreads players out...preserves fairways better and actually services the public better than cramming multiple baskets on 1 course

A good fun little 18 hole rec course takes up about as much room as 3 holes on a championship course....this is a worthy endeavor and I much prefer it as a better use of space

2 baskets and 2 tees is actually not all its cracked up to be

That's great if you have extra land and extra maintenance to spare.

 

[optidiscic]

That's great if you have extra land and extra maintenance to spare.

the point is that it really doesn't take much land to build a fun rec course

just sacrifice a small part of the allotted land for the rec course and it's easily accomplished without really lessening the bigger badder course