Inverse, Double Mando or Alternate Mandos

[roggenb3]

Because if you have to have a mando for safety, that means you've intentionally designed a hole where there are safety concerns.

Well, yeah. But given an existing hole with safety concerns, isn't adding the Mando to deter the dangerous route a good idea?

Specifically I am thinking of Dretzka, and the couple holes there with mandos that prevent the giant hyzer out over the road. I don't see how those could be seen as a bad thing. They prevent a ton of shots from going into the road.

 

[JC17393]

Well, yeah. But given an existing hole with safety concerns, isn't adding the Mando to deter the dangerous route a good idea?

Specifically I am thinking of Dretzka, and the couple holes there with mandos that prevent the giant hyzer out over the road. I don't see how those could be seen as a bad thing. They prevent a ton of shots from going into the road.

They don't prevent all shots from going in the road, though. Mandos are only effective for players that pay attention and attempt to adhere to them.

Regardless, it is still poor hole design to create holes where such a band-aid fix is necessary in the first place. Better to change the design so that the throw over the road (or whatever area that needs to be avoided) is either impossible or the result of a truly terrible, one-in-a-million type throw.

 

[_MTL_]

They don't prevent all shots from going in the road, though. Mandos are only effective for players that pay attention and attempt to adhere to them.

This a million times.

 

[Steve West]

Well, yeah. But given an existing hole with safety concerns, isn't adding the Mando to deter the dangerous route a good idea?

No, for the reasons others have given. Also, because it makes you think you've fixed the problem so you stop looking for a real solution.

On the other hand, not everyone thinks a mando (for pure design purposes) makes for a worse design than accomplishing the same thing with a row of evergreens or a bamboo fence. But, if you want to hang with the cool kids, you can't say that out loud.

 

[roggenb3]

Eh, I still say some fix is better than none.

There would be alot more road shots without those mandos. Clearly they ain't gnna rip out those holes at Dretzka, so the mandos seem completely reasonable and logical to me.

On the other hand, not everyone thinks a mando (for pure design purposes) makes for a worse design than accomplishing the same thing with a row of evergreens or a bamboo fence. But, if you want to hang with the cool kids, you can't say that out loud.

I thouht I was the only one that liked mandos. I dont see them as much more gimmicky than doing the same thing with rows of trees, and the added pressure is good fun.

I've def played some I really liked. Isn't there a double mando at Kaposia, up by some tennis courts on the back 9?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I've def played some I really liked. Isn't there a double mando at Kaposia, up by some tennis courts on the back 9?

Temp hole for one or two events.

 

[Turnipseed]

On the other hand, not everyone thinks a mando (for pure design purposes) makes for a worse design than accomplishing the same thing with a row of evergreens or a bamboo fence. But, if you want to hang with the cool kids, you can't say that out loud.

The cool kids can go suck on a soap bubble.

Mandatories can be used to create exceptionally good holes, and are no worse than any other way of shaping a hole. In fact they are often better than natural obstacles since they still allow low-skilled and casual players to enjoy play at their level if they choose. Moreover they eliminate the randomness of most natural obstacles. A bad shot won't be rewarded. Whinging about excessive penalty can be eliminated by placing fair and creative drop zones.

 

[DavidSauls]

On the other hand, not everyone thinks a mando (for pure design purposes) makes for a worse design than accomplishing the same thing with a row of evergreens or a bamboo fence. But, if you want to hang with the cool kids, you can't say that out loud.

There's a difference between the route restricted by a solid object, and by an imaginary line. Generally speaking, we throw a disc, and play it where it lands (or take a penalty if it lands in the wrong place), and how it gets from lie to lie is our business. The somewhat dissatisfying thing about a mando is that you've thrown from your lie, to the lie you want, but are being told you got there the wrong way.

Furthermore, sometimes it's tricky to tell whether you cleared a mando on the proper side, or not. Don't have that problem with a solid object.

We don't have the resources to build whatever we want, so sometimes we have to compromise. Sometimes it works well. But given the option, I'd much rather have an object to restrict a flying disc, than just a mando and a rule.

 

[roblee]

The OPs idea seems creative, simple, and within the rules. We don't always have the luxury of large solid obstacles, mature forest, or ability to construct barriers. In our semi-arid environment our trees are restricted, short, and fragile. We use well defined mandos that are hard to miss that provide the opportunity to throw a skillful tee shot. For OP-I'd suggest 2 DZs; thrower's choice. Actually pretty simple.

 

[PureAngus]

So in the OP, Im imagining a relatively open hole and his idea is to force a line around two centrally located trees instead of through them because (I assume) the hole is an almost guaranteed birdie. For all I know, the hole is incredibly boring and OPs idea makes it more enjoyable instead of a gimme.

While I don't know anything about the layout of the hole, since its just temporary I'd imagine you could just wrap some caution tape around both trees and hang a sign in between them that reads <--MANDO--> Pretty easy to understand from a players POV.

 

[Discette]

And 100% agreed that mandatories should NEVER be used for 'safety's sake'.

Why?

Because if you have to have a mando for safety, that means you've intentionally designed a hole where there are safety concerns.

Well, yeah. But given an existing hole with safety concerns, isn't adding the Mando to deter the dangerous route a good idea?

Bad designers often try to force too many holes into too small of an area. They are so excited that the city wants a disc golf course in this park that they lose sight of the fact that an entire 18 hole course may not be appropriate for the limited park space.


Back in 2010, a first time course designer in this area shoe horned an 18 hole course in a very crowded multi-use park. The designer used mandatories on 7 of the 18 holes - all for safety reasons. Less than a month after the course was installed, at least two park users were hit by players ignoring the signs and some holes were redesigned. But the course and most mandos are still there and the park is still very crowded and the rec players still ignore the signs.

When a mando is for safety reasons, that generally means that throwing the prohibited route, could be unsafe to other park users. If the hole requires a mandatory to keep players from throwing towards the playground equipment, it is flat out a bad design. Many courses just have an arrow on a tree/pole and zero explanation why the arrow is there. While players in PDGA events obey mandatory routes, most chuckers and rec players will never, ever pay attention to the arrows or tee signs showing the mandatory. These same Rec players also play from their lie in the middle of the OB road or jump over the fence and play from neighbor's back yard for cripes sake. Also, the spray pattern for a rec player means they could actually make the mandatory and still end up exactly where course designer did not intend. Course designers must keep these players in mind during design.

 

[Steve West]

... While players in PDGA events obey mandatory routes...

Well, they try. They can still miss with a bad throw.

 

[joecoin]

I've got a manda on my home course. It's there to make the hole scary, not to make it safe. You have to throw out to the right of a tree that is on the edge of a cliff.

Without the manda, the hole is just a straight boring shot.

Is this acceptable to those who don't like mandas?

 

[biscoe]

I've got a manda on my home course. It's there to make the hole scary, not to make it safe. You have to throw out to the right of a tree that is on the edge of a cliff.

Without the manda, the hole is just a straight boring shot.

Is this acceptable to those who don't like mandas?

So it is there to force you to take a route that could actually be physically dangerous should you throw an errant shot? If that is the case it is most definitely unacceptable.

 

[JC17393]

I've got a manda on my home course. It's there to make the hole scary, not to make it safe. You have to throw out to the right of a tree that is on the edge of a cliff.

Without the manda, the hole is just a straight boring shot.

Is this acceptable to those who don't like mandas?

My view is that mandos can be used and used effectively but they should never be the primary feature of a hole. If the only argument for a particular mando is that without it, the hole is boring or easy or unsafe, then the hole (regardless of the mando) isn't a good one.

 

[Steve West]

My view is that mandos can be used and used effectively but they should never be the primary feature of a hole. If the only argument for a particular mando is that without it, the hole is boring or easy or unsafe, then the hole (regardless of the mando) isn't a good one.

Let's say a thicket of trees forced that throw out over the cliff and back. It's not a boring hole, but that risky throw is the only interesting feature. Does that make it a not-good hole because it only has one interesting aspect?

If the only reason players need to throw out over the cliff and back is because the mando requires it, does that make a more not-good hole because now the primary feature is a mando instead of some trees?

 

[JC17393]

Let's say a thicket of trees forced that throw out over the cliff and back. It's not a boring hole, but that risky throw is the only interesting feature. Does that make it a not-good hole because it only has one interesting aspect?

If the only reason players need to throw out over the cliff and back is because the mando requires it, does that make a more not-good hole because now the primary feature is a mando instead of some trees?

There is no one-size-fits-all answer but yes, there is certainly a possibility that the hole is still not good if it's a thicket that forces the over the cliff throw rather than a mando. Other factors include the overall distance of the hole, the severity of the bend/turn required to go out over the cliff and back, and what the landing zone looks like.

But I stand by my statement that if the mando is the only thing that makes the hole "interesting" or challenging, it's not a good hole at all. Mandos should be a tool in the box for course designers, but it shouldn't be a crutch. Simply dropping a mando into a hole for effect, to me, shows a lack of creativity.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

But I stand by my statement that if the mando is the only thing that makes the hole "interesting" or challenging, it's not a good hole at all.

I 100% get what you are trying to do, but if this is the only way to make the hole good, it's not a good hole.

I like the second quote best and it can be distilled as follows:

"If the hole is good, but I don't like how it is good, then it's not good."

Guys, that's really not was I was asking. I'm not asking permission, just input as to experience with such an implementation.

Depending on how wide this tree gap is, you could make a decorative wall, with rocks, or vines. Make it not a mando, but there isn't really a way to go through this.

Have you seen the mando done like that? Did it confuse anyone.

I have a hole on my home course that I had a gap fenced on. I'm not against doing that, but there is a significant difference; there's no penalty for hitting the fence. In fact, I'd be inclined to use the mando line as the drop zone for missing the mando. As to concerns about explanations, I give out caddy books at my tournaments and read through them at the players meeting. I'm not going to concern myself with a player who both failed to pay attention at the players meeting and didn't consult the caddy book when he saw the two large and obvious mando arrows. On the other hand, if players are going to look at the mando after hearing an explanation and looking at the caddy book and many of them are simply not going to understand, that would be a problem caused by me that I would like to avoid.

Simply dropping a mando into a hole for effect, to me, shows a lack of creativity.

It's bold that you would state that without really knowing anything about the hole. I've seen some pretty damned creative mandos.

 

[JC17393]

It's bold that you would state that without really knowing anything about the hole. I've seen some pretty damned creative mandos.

I didn't say mandos can't be creative. I've seen creative mandos too. I said holes in which the primary feature is a mando aren't creative. If you have a field with one tree and you put a tee on one side, a basket on the other and call the tree a mando...my reaction is going to be "meh" every time.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I didn't say mandos can't be creative. I've seen creative mandos too. I said holes in which the primary feature is a mando aren't creative. If you have a field with one tree and you put a tee on one side, a basket on the other and call the tree a mando...my reaction is going to be "meh" every time.

What if it's the only option to add some challenge? If that's what you have to work with, go for it. It may be lame without the mando but with it it would be slightly less lame. It's relative. My issue is with the current default penalty. This does make the hole with that mando, under current rules, net lamer.