After seeing the two new holes in the JOMEZ Big Sexy intro, I'm OK with #4. Maybe make only one double mando to force the tunnel shot, I'm seeing more tunnel shots through pine trees on courses I play, kind of nice to see the pros have to make the same shot.
I do think the mando on #3 is a little gimmicky. Throw 600' then have to hit a 10-12 foot double mando? Seems a little over the top.
Funny, I actually like the double mando on 3. Everyone's got an opinion, right?
The fairest criticism of the "miles of rope" course design philosophy is that while it does force placement it does not dictate specific throw shapes/lines. In an otherwise wide open field, that double mando at least offers some restriction to the path your disc can follow. So to an extent, it's adding a type of challenge that Winthrop is oft cited as lacking.
I'd agree that the double mando is maybe a little tighter than ideal. But they were working with what they had available: those 2 trees in a big open space. I don't think that gap is unfairly tight for the MPO field. Also, yes it's gimmicky, but heck....welcome to the USDGC!
Overall, new Hole 3 seems to fit the course without being redundant. I liked Sexton's observation in the Jomez preview vid, that big distance players can actually get into trouble by going too far off the tee and winding up with a funny angle through the gap. So rather than trying to mash it 600' off the tee, it might be better golf to "lay up" a little bit. (You know, as much as a 500' turnover can be a lay up
)
In my mind, the biggest problem with the double mando on Hole 3 is that it's debuting alongside Hole 4 with the double-double. The narrative of "3 double mandos in 2 consecutive holes" is indeed eyeroll-worthy. But looking at the two individual holes in question (>700' and open, vs. < 300' and tree lined), 3 seems reasonable with 1 double mando and 4 is where it's overused with 2 doubles packed in there.
But again: opinions. Everybody's got some.