Mandos for course design

[smoothplayer]

Your thoughts?

 

[biscoe]

Every situation is different. Is this in reference to Glendoveer or a permanent course?

For a permanent course:
They very seldom make anything safer.

If for some reason there needs to be one try to make it basically unmissable.

For Glendoveer:
When I first heard that there were 19 (I think) mandos on the 18 holes I thought it was ridiculous. After watching the event they were not all that obtrusive in most places. For temp layouts on golf courses they are probably something of a necessary evil in order to force some shot shaping.

 

[smoothplayer]

Every situation is different. Is this in reference to Glendoveer or a permanent course?

For a permanent course:
They very seldom make anything safer.

If for some reason there needs to be one try to make it basically unmissable.

For Glendoveer:
When I first heard that there were 19 (I think) mandos on the 18 holes I thought it was ridiculous. After watching the event they were not all that obtrusive in most places. For temp layouts on golf courses they are probably something of a necessary evil in order to force some shot shaping.

Both. I prefer not to see them at all. I don't think a course can be a 5 star if it has a mando.

 

[DavidSauls]

I am not a fan of mandos, but like John said, there are a variety of situations.

That said, we have one at Stoney Hill on a permanent course. It's to protect a house. But we have a low level of play, and a high level of compliance. There's enough cushion that accidentally missing the mando is still highly unlikely to hit the house; it just shuts off an alternative route some may take.

The advantage that temp courses / tournaments have, is that everyone should be aware and complying to avoid a penalty. On permanent courses for casual play, players may ignore mandos. If they're for safety, that's a problem; if they're for challenge, it hardly matters.

 

[smoothplayer]

I am not a fan of mandos, but like John said, there are a variety of situations.

That said, we have one at Stoney Hill on a permanent course. It's to protect a house. But we have a low level of play, and a high level of compliance. There's enough cushion that accidentally missing the mando is still highly unlikely to hit the house; it just shuts off an alternative route some may take.

The advantage that temp courses / tournaments have, is that everyone should be aware and complying to avoid a penalty. On permanent courses for casual play, players may ignore mandos. If they're for safety, that's a problem; if they're for challenge, it hardly matters.

I think Mandos to add challenge is on the gimmicky side. I don't like that you are telling a player where and almost how he/she has to throw a shot.

Good and great holes don't have mandos. I've been seeing a lot more on coverage lately and am not a fan.

The problem is you really can't make difficult enough holes and still have room for a lot of fans.

So you either have good courses and limited fans or gimmicky courses with fans.

 

[sisyphus]

When they're installed for 'safety', they're useless: poor throws will happen not only with inexperienced players, but with 'experienced' players who ignore the mando because they want to try an interesting line.
Ideally, a fantastically designed course will have nature provide a 'mando', such that if the player wishes to score well, they'll stick to the intended line ...because trying the other route almost always results in added strokes.

 

[DavidSauls]

Devil's Advocate:

You have a hole that's a curving fairway bordered by dense woods. You're basically forcing players to follow that route, because there's 0% chance of success if they don't. Then somebody cuts down most of the trees on the inside of that curve. You declare a remaining tree on that line as a mandatory, to maintain the original requirements. It's basically the same hole, and designer is still dictating where and how player has to throw.

Yeah, there's a little bit of difference; you now have to judge whether the mando was missed, and there's no chance for a scramble shot.

Can a great course have a mando? Many of the best courses I ever played, had them -- but usually, no more than 1 or 2. Certainly not 19 of them, though.

 

[biscoe]

I think Mandos to add challenge is on the gimmicky side. I don't like that you are telling a player where and almost how he/she has to throw a shot.

Good and great holes don't have mandos. I've been seeing a lot more on coverage lately and am not a fan.

This is going to sound like I am a big supporter of the mando when in reality I am not but here we go anyway.

To the bolded: course designers are constantly telling players where to throw shots whether there is a mando involved or not.

As for good/great holes not having mandos I would say that a better statement would be that "good and great holes don't have mandos that frequently come into play" (even that is a stretch). A basically unmissable mando 5 feet off the tee to the left to prevent a player from taking a route out into an open field paralleling a wooded fairway does not imo make a hole irredeemable.

poll could use a few more choices like: "I don't care for them but occasionally they serve a useful purpose."

 

[DavidSauls]

poll could use a few more choices like: "I don't care for them but occasionally they serve a useful purpose."

Along with "not for safety purposes on permanent public courses, but acceptable for other reasons".

 

[krupicka]

As for good/great holes not having mandos I would say that a better statement would be that "good and great holes don't have mandos that frequently come into play" (even that is a stretch). A basically unmissable mando 5 feet off the tee to the left to prevent a player from taking a route out into an open field paralleling a wooded fairway does not imo make a hole irredeemable.

At the A-tier I ran this weekend we found MPO players playing the Simon line over another tee pad because it was more open rather than running the gauntlet through a tight fairway. There will be a mando there soon. The course has been in the ground for years. We had not seen players take that line until this event. I've told the local crew to put that mando somewhere where it cannot be missed unless one intentionally was trying to miss it. When playing the short pin position taking that line is not beneficial, only when playing the long pin does the Simon line even make any sense which is why it is not typically used.

 

[Steve West]

... I don't like that you are telling a player where and almost how he/she has to throw a shot.

...

That's what course design is.

"Where" and "How" are limited by how the tee and the target are placed; and by the trees, hills, wind, water - and OB and Mandos - along the way.

An early form of disc golf mandated the type of throw (forehand, chicken wing, etc.) to use on every hole, as well as the route the throw had to take. It was a more complete test of skill, because the player had to be able to execute many different kinds of throws.

 

[txmxer]

In a natural terrain course, mandos may get put in to control the line of play where Mother Nature has not provided a tree/trees.

So now it's the course designers failure to not have the most immaculate piece of land to install a course on?

Lame. Just another generic question that fails to consider the issue in total.

 

[araytx]

This is going to sound like I am a big supporter of the mando when in reality I am not but here we go anyway.

To the bolded: course designers are constantly attempting to tell players where to throw shots whether there is a mando involved or not.

As for good/great holes not having mandos I would say that a better statement would be that "good and great holes don't have mandos that frequently come into play" (even that is a stretch). A basically unmissable mando 5 feet off the tee to the left to prevent a player from taking a route out into an open field paralleling a wooded fairway does not imo make a hole irredeemable.

poll could use a few more choices like: "I don't care for them but occasionally they serve a useful purpose."

ftfy

 

[BillFleming]

I believe mandos should only be used for safety reasons. On a permanent course, the designer should first exhaust all possibilities of changing the layout to remove the safety issue. But that isn't always do-able. And sometimes a course can get a huge amount of players for tournaments and/or leagues. So a temporary mando may be necessary for those. For example, the Memorial hole 12. There's no mando there for regular play or league play, but when the Shelly Sharpe and Memorial tournaments happen, the number of players really increases and they put up a triple mando to 'protect' Duke's patio from stray discs and also to protect players on hole 13 tee pad and fairway.

Another example of a mando for safety is hole 11 of Jonesboro Open in 2011. It's intended as a dog-leg left. Simon threw left off the tee pad and went up the adjacent fairway. No issue there, but then round 2 others did the same thing and the safety of players on the other fairway came up (more players throwing "at them" increased the possibility of injuries), so a mando was installed for the third round.

I know there are some courses that use mandos to 'force' a specific line the designer had in mind....but I'm not a fan of that. Safety = yes.

 

[dr.chainslove]

Team Mando over here. Here's my 2 cents.

I live in Dave Greenwell country where most (maybe all) of his course designs have a few mandos. Some are for safety that allow a some holes to exist in close proximity and some are there to force the intended shot. In both cases, these mandos maximize the available land, especially with some of the more open courses.

Surely there will be chuckers out there that are oblivious to mandos but I like that they're there in competitive events to increase the risks and bad shot punishment.

Now there are many bad examples of mandos out there. For instance, Sahm Park Indianapolis hole 10 has 2 that are barely visible from the tee and so far away that there would surely be disputes whether a shot passed. They also don't serve any function as the area they want you to avoid is pretty much natural OB with no safety concerns.

Unfortunately, most disc golf courses don't have the privilege of prime land available for fantastic disc golf holes. I think mandos when properly used can really improve the design of a less-than-perfect plot of land.

 

[ray1970]

I'm with everyone else. Mandos are great and necessary. Mandos are stupid and useless.

Seriously, they can serve a purpose and in some instances actually make a hole more challenging or just more fun to play.

Every course is limited by the terrain and vegetation available to work with and sometimes the only way to provide challenge on a hole or two is to limit the ways a player can get from point A to point B.

I'm not opposed to a mando right near the tee to force a certain line or route. Some silly mando 300' down the fairway that forces you to go left or right of it for no valid reason is kind of silly.

 

[DiscJunkie]

My attitude toward mandos has changed over the years, from "avoid at all costs" to a more nuanced opinion.
I hate when mandos are there because the course designer wants you to throw a certain line, as a design element, ie triple mandos.
I agree that "safety" mandos are usually a result of poor design and rarely result in the intended safety expectations but are sometimes necessary.
I agree that mandos are not always bad, and sometimes improve the design.
I agree wholeheartedly that when mandos are used, they should be practically un-missable.
Didn't think that the mandos on Glendoveer were that bad, as it was a temp, multi-use property.
Favorite mando: hmmm….. Nothing comes to mind.
Worst mando: hmmm……. Too many to mention.

 

[smoothplayer]

That's what course design is.

"Where" and "How" are limited by how the tee and the target are placed; and by the trees, hills, wind, water - and OB and Mandos - along the way.

An early form of disc golf mandated the type of throw (forehand, chicken wing, etc.) to use on every hole, as well as the route the throw had to take. It was a more complete test of skill, because the player had to be able to execute many different kinds of throws.

The mando is taking away a players freedom from playing anywhere and any shot he/she desires. I'd prefer an actual wall of trees rather then a sign that says don't throw there. I guess that is the point.

Like I said earlier, the DGPT has a damned if they do damned if they don't problem. You want spectators? Well then you need room for them and mandos, artificial OB and mozzerella sticks will be the norm.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

When they're installed for 'safety', they're useless: poor throws will happen not only with inexperienced players, but with 'experienced' players who ignore the mando because they want to try an interesting line.
Ideally, a fantastically designed course will have nature provide a 'mando', such that if the player wishes to score well, they'll stick to the intended line ...because trying the other route almost always results in added strokes.

I can't disagree with this, in theory. Completely agree that mandos don't really protect anyone from truly wayward shots or those hellbent on throwing forbidden lines. But mandos should greatly reduce the # of unsafe attempts, which means far fewer opportunities for bad things to happen.

Yes, good design encourages routes that don't result in safety issues, but given the increase in DG's popularity, and shared use situations, it becomes a matter likelihood and foreseeability.

And as Biscoe said, every situation is unique.
There's no "one size fits all" answer.

I'm not usually a fan of mandos, but I kinda liked Boyd Hill's "Double-Double Mando" (I think it's #6, judging from course pix).

Just don't press the gimmick button too many times. Doing something once can be cute/fun, but can quickly feel contrived to the point where it detracts from the experience when employed repeatedly.

 

[smoothplayer]

In a natural terrain course, mandos may get put in to control the line of play where Mother Nature has not provided a tree/trees.

So now it's the course designers failure to not have the most immaculate piece of land to install a course on?

Lame. Just another generic question that fails to consider the issue in total.

They will know going in that the property is or isn't going to be world class or not. Not every piece of land can provide a 5 star course. It's simply not possible. So is it their "failure"? Never said it was a pass fail test. But I'm sure they knew going in that the course was never going to be top notch in the first place.

If you are limited by space and few trees in a small park, well your likely never going to get more then a 3.5 no matter what. The land/terrain/trees is the biggest factor for sure how good a course can be.