"Tweeners"

[tom12003]

Tweeners are holes that are designated usually as par 4s that realistically average 3.4-3.9 (thus the label of tweeners). I like them, particularly on heavily wooded holes, e.g., 220 ft to a 90 degree turn for another 200 ft or so--no way for the big guns to reach on their drive. Hit your line on the drive, probable birdie; miss the line, struggle for par (if it is really wooded, maybe higher). 970+ players should usually get a 3, most 920+ players should par; but us less mortals (like me, a Sr Grand) could get a 3 with some spectacular shots every so often, but usually happy with a 4.

I like tweeners as they are probable separators by skill but give a chance for the lessers to do well.

Interested in your thoughts on tweeners.

[gcr_russell]

I like when "tweener" holes present the opportunity for a spectacular eagle but otherwise show a healthy score separation. Where most Open Players average 3.5 and above so you can gain strokes on the hole. If that theoretical hole is too easy for a 970+ player to birdie everytime then there isn't any score separation from two fantastic shots and a putt versus two decent shots and a putt.

[FierceTable]

If it's done well that's fine, but I've come across a few holes where you basically have to throw a 70-150' shot just to start the hole. I feel like often times these holes don't do anything except make each player throw to the non-designated teepad. I feel like when my worst throw ever on a hole doesn't influence my score as compared to my best throw ever off a tee something is wrong with the design. I equate these holes to starting a hole from inside my house...if I have to throw out the front door just so I can throw over the house towards the hole out back then why not just make the tee pad outside of my house rather than make everyone waste time throwing a shot most beginners could muster.

[optidiscic]

I strive to make holes that are closer to 2.5 or 3.5 than 2 or 3. These are much better holes IMO than the standard 3s and 4s. A true deuce or die hole (2.5) which is the bane of many disc golfers is actually a better hole than a true par 3 or 4 as it demands you execute......many true par 4s actually suck as you can easily recover and scoring remains stagnant even if the golf is exciting.
A course with a bunch of 2.5, 3.5,4.5,or 5.5 holes will see scoring swings and make for exciting disc golf both when playing solo or in a competitive situation.
Years ago there was a movement to make all holes an even SSA 3,4, or 5 for open players.....what a dumb idea as most players will score the same and the rounds are not as wild or fun. I seem to be in the minority of people who prefer tweeners but its what I am striving for during my design.

[tom12003]

Originally Posted by FierceTable

If it's done well that's fine, but I've come across a few holes where you basically have to throw a 70-150' shot just to start the hole. I feel like often times these holes don't do anything except make each player throw to the non-designated teepad..

Agree, a putt should not be the drive!

[optidiscic]

Originally Posted by tom12003

Agree, a putt should not be the drive!

This is a complaint many players make about Idlewild...me included.
They say that its about managing the course but Dave242 says its a way of inflating par with a series of mid-rangish...putt like throws. I basically agree. Sometimes there is a throw or a way that is not a simple pooch out and supposedly open players can make some type of tight strange turning throw that separates the men from the boys.......Killens Pond in DE and Idlewild come to mind as guilty of insane technical pro tees that complicate the hole and add a stroke of par......Funny thing is I really like playing these courses as they are a ton of fun...I also enjoy a big drive through the woods but have come to appreciate these "manufactured high par technical holes"

[weeman]

Originally Posted by optidiscic

This is a complaint many players make about Idlewild...me included.
They say that its about managing the course but Dave242 says its a way of inflating par with a series of mid-rangish...putt like throws. I basically agree. Sometimes there is a throw or a way that is not a simple pooch out and supposedly open players can make some type of tight strange turning throw that separates the men from the boys.......Killens Pond in DE and Idlewild come to mind as guilty of insane technical pro tees that complicate the hole and add a stroke of par......Funny thing is I really like playing these courses as they are a ton of fun...I also enjoy a big drive through the woods but have come to appreciate these "manufactured high par technical holes"

I see what you're saying and, as being a big fan of Idlewild-type golf, can agree with your logic. But where I differ in your reasoning is it all comes down to what score do you want to get on a hole and how you're going to play it as a result. Risk-reward on holes like that go a long way for me. You should have an equal chance of getting burned trying to take a bigger chunk outta the hole as you do successfully executing your shot. It shouldn't matter where you are on the course.

[optidiscic]

Originally Posted by weeman

I see what you're saying and, as being a big fan of Idlewild-type golf, can agree with your logic. But where I differ in your reasoning is it all comes down to what score do you want to get on a hole and how you're going to play it as a result. Risk-reward on holes like that go a long way for me. You should have an equal chance of getting burned trying to take a bigger chunk outta the hole as you do successfully executing your shot. It shouldn't matter where you are on the course.

lol...well I kind of enjoy both types of golf....so I'm not sure what either of our positions are.
Not sure what this has to do with tweener holes as many holes at Idlewild are full of randomness and luck or demand skill and executing depending on your skill level.

Back on topic though.....tweeners really depend on who is playing the hole.....I don't believe in designing holes that separate the open guys from the AMs....IMO that is up to the players to do and has more to do with hitting putts, consistency on drives and decision-making. That to me separates classes of players. This is why I don't like a hole to average 3 or 4 for most open players....The closer to 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5 for open players the better the hole. The course should not separate the AMS from the Pros....the course should make for exciting battles between pros and exciting battles between ams.

[Cgkdisc]

optidiscic - The closer to 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5 for open players the better the hole.

Poppycock...

[optidiscic]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Poppycock...

Chuck I actually prefer it and I think the closer to a tweener you get for a level of player the better.....Holes that are SSA tweeners make for more scoring separation within a division and holes that are SSA non tweeners tend to be either too easy to par or too forgiving as mistakes are forgiven....I know pure SSA to determine par is your baby and I acknowledge its a great tool...but I prefer holes like Nockamixon 2 and old Nockamixon 5 where Scoring avg is/was closer to 3.5 and 4.5 than those that are SSA exact 3s,4s, and 5s.....I understand the movement to separate AMs from Pros but I think SSA in the tweener ranges makes for more exciting golf for those of equal ability.
And as I said earlier...consistency on drives and consistency on putts and decision-making should separate pros from ams and not the course.