To piggy-back what JC said Mr. Billipo, another reason might be that rarely are there enough bomber greens (basket places) on any one piece of land whereas one can always place another tee somewhere along side a tree to effect a different challenge / different shot shape / length (than that hole's other tee). There just is usually a lot more decent / acceptable tee locations (using trees, etc.) than there are great green locations on any one plot of land.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
2Tx2B=4C?
- Thread starter JAKE master
- Start date
To piggy-back what JC said Mr. Billipo, another reason might be that rarely are there enough bomber greens (basket places) on any one piece of land whereas one can always place another tee somewhere along side a tree to effect a different challenge / different shot shape / length (than that hole's other tee). There just is usually a lot more decent / acceptable tee locations (using trees, etc.) than there are great green locations on any one plot of land.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
I am working on a design now on a plot that is a decent candidate for a 2T/2B setup and am trying to decide whether to push it to the owners or not. In general i design with 2 tees and one basket placement in mind. Since course will be pay to play the potential for more varied layouts is very attractive.
I think many of the issues with 2T/2B setups occur because the second set of baskets is often added after the fact and not during the initial design process. At the stage of development this new course is currently I can make sure one set of baskets is not in the way of the other and that all the playing options are sensible and safe. Bottom line is there is no true rule of thumb and it is all dependent on the property and designer. 2T/2B certainly works well at Iron Hill.
I am curious how JC manages to install concrete tees for a third of the cost of a target though. In my experience they cost roughly the same if not more.
I think many of the issues with 2T/2B setups occur because the second set of baskets is often added after the fact and not during the initial design process. At the stage of development this new course is currently I can make sure one set of baskets is not in the way of the other and that all the playing options are sensible and safe. Bottom line is there is no true rule of thumb and it is all dependent on the property and designer. 2T/2B certainly works well at Iron Hill.
I am curious how JC manages to install concrete tees for a third of the cost of a target though. In my experience they cost roughly the same if not more.
Guess it depends on how you figure labor costs, but when I poured my concrete pads, it worked out to about $140 per pad for materials. Targets, when including freight and concrete to secure the installation tube, were about $375 per (price varies based on the target you buy, of course). I did most of the work myself (had one helper for the actual pouring) and used a borrowed mixer. If I estimate what it would have cost to pay two laborers and rent a mixer, that would about double the expense per pad. Since I didn't technically pay for that stuff, I don't count the cost. That's the basis of my math, which I acknowledge may not apply everywhere. I'm assuming that if a parks department is doing the work, they may have some of the material and/or equipment available, plus the experience, that would reduce the overall time and cost of the project versus a group of club volunteers or the like.
Last edited:
UP Mountain Man
Par Member
9 x 2T x 2B
The Brickyard, in Menomonie WI, and Evansville DGC, in Evansville WI, are both examples of 9 hole courses with two tee pads and two baskets per hole.
I've played both, multiple times. When we play The Brickyard casual, we always play
all four "layouts". When I play tournaments in Evansville, the TD has us play all four "layouts".
IMO both of these courses benefit from the 2T x 2B design.
I've also played The Wilderness, in Montello WI, a couple of different times. 18 x 2T x 2B. Certainly creates tons of options and tons of fun ways to play each hole. However, I can see the potential for some of the downsides previously mentioned in this discussion, coming into play on a course like this, with many long par holes.
The Brickyard, in Menomonie WI, and Evansville DGC, in Evansville WI, are both examples of 9 hole courses with two tee pads and two baskets per hole.
I've played both, multiple times. When we play The Brickyard casual, we always play
all four "layouts". When I play tournaments in Evansville, the TD has us play all four "layouts".
IMO both of these courses benefit from the 2T x 2B design.
I've also played The Wilderness, in Montello WI, a couple of different times. 18 x 2T x 2B. Certainly creates tons of options and tons of fun ways to play each hole. However, I can see the potential for some of the downsides previously mentioned in this discussion, coming into play on a course like this, with many long par holes.
One tricky design feature of multiple tees, or multiple baskets, is transitions.
You don't want a super-long transition to be created by one of the options. I've seen cases where, to play the short tees, you have to walk to the long tees, then down the fairway---in essence, you walk just as far as someone playing the long tees, just throw less. Or retro-fitted long basket positions, that create really long transitions.
This can be avoided in the design, of course, particularly if all tees are baskets are designed at the outset. But it's tricky.
I'd think 2T+2B would really complicate this---if the tees and baskets are varied enough to make a big difference in play, having reasonable transitions for all 4 combinations must involve very careful design.
You don't want a super-long transition to be created by one of the options. I've seen cases where, to play the short tees, you have to walk to the long tees, then down the fairway---in essence, you walk just as far as someone playing the long tees, just throw less. Or retro-fitted long basket positions, that create really long transitions.
This can be avoided in the design, of course, particularly if all tees are baskets are designed at the outset. But it's tricky.
I'd think 2T+2B would really complicate this---if the tees and baskets are varied enough to make a big difference in play, having reasonable transitions for all 4 combinations must involve very careful design.
I like this course 'format' from a tournament admin point of view. Bear with me while I explain.
On a golf course, the person whose job it is to set up the course each day frequently uses tools which details general hole locations and tee distances (for each set) for that day. The reason for this not only ensures daily variability, but also ensures a consistent level of difficulty & length from day to day - even if the course plays slightly differently. This is important in golf because the average difficulty of a course needs to roughly match its posted slope rating.
For tournaments, a disc golf course could be set up to play in a similar manner with this design 'format'. Each round (of a 4-round tournament) every hole would play differently, perhaps vastly, but overall, each round the course would present the golfer with the same average level of difficulty & length. Obviously, disc golf has a different rating system for courses, but as a player, I generally felt uncomfortable with merely lengthening the course on successive rounds as was the general custom during my prime...
I realize that this may present some logistic and computational hurdles, but I've never experienced it in disc golf. Additionally, one can observe that in professional golf tournaments, they try to follow this 'average difficulty level' maxim for the course each day of the tournament while making the course play tougher overall; most obviously they do not place all the holes in the most difficult locations for any round, let alone sunday....
On a golf course, the person whose job it is to set up the course each day frequently uses tools which details general hole locations and tee distances (for each set) for that day. The reason for this not only ensures daily variability, but also ensures a consistent level of difficulty & length from day to day - even if the course plays slightly differently. This is important in golf because the average difficulty of a course needs to roughly match its posted slope rating.
For tournaments, a disc golf course could be set up to play in a similar manner with this design 'format'. Each round (of a 4-round tournament) every hole would play differently, perhaps vastly, but overall, each round the course would present the golfer with the same average level of difficulty & length. Obviously, disc golf has a different rating system for courses, but as a player, I generally felt uncomfortable with merely lengthening the course on successive rounds as was the general custom during my prime...
I realize that this may present some logistic and computational hurdles, but I've never experienced it in disc golf. Additionally, one can observe that in professional golf tournaments, they try to follow this 'average difficulty level' maxim for the course each day of the tournament while making the course play tougher overall; most obviously they do not place all the holes in the most difficult locations for any round, let alone sunday....
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
The Warwick, NY course with two tees and two baskets on each hole has specified at least 8 different layouts that roughly play the same SSA to provide variety but equivalent fair play for their handicap league.
I didn't think the idea was original, just under-implemented in disc golf. More food for thought.
Edified there's an example in practice...
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
There are a few courses where many holes have two or three pin placements that are just 20-30 feet apart, essentially emulating the different hole placements on a ball golf green. The idea there when they move the pins is to maintain roughly the same net challenge on the course with different pin combos.
To answer the question in the OP, I consider 2T/2B a multiple layout course.
When I played at Morley in California, they have 1T/1B but the pin can be in like 8 different locations depending on the week. It was cool but it took a solid minute or two of reading the tee sign and looking around to know where to throw. I started to really dig how they could have such a complex but still simple "start here, end there" layout thats rarely the same.
My home course has 2T/2B (technically 3 pin locations, but usually only short and long are in place) and is laid out great. The teepads aren't terribly far away from each other but change how you have to approach almost every hole. Also, there is only 1 hole I can think of where playing long-long causes you to go out of your way to the next hole.
I love the variety that multiple teepads and baskets can add to a course, but it is pretty noticeable when the designer does it for the sake of "look how many layouts we have!" or "more options = better course"
When I played at Morley in California, they have 1T/1B but the pin can be in like 8 different locations depending on the week. It was cool but it took a solid minute or two of reading the tee sign and looking around to know where to throw. I started to really dig how they could have such a complex but still simple "start here, end there" layout thats rarely the same.
My home course has 2T/2B (technically 3 pin locations, but usually only short and long are in place) and is laid out great. The teepads aren't terribly far away from each other but change how you have to approach almost every hole. Also, there is only 1 hole I can think of where playing long-long causes you to go out of your way to the next hole.
I love the variety that multiple teepads and baskets can add to a course, but it is pretty noticeable when the designer does it for the sake of "look how many layouts we have!" or "more options = better course"
