Re design VS Alt pin locations

[Eric whippet Brown]

I'm curious if our course would benefit from a total redesign or if we can make it better with alt pins? I started on this course when it was 21 holes my very 1st tourney was the DRO and that was a long time ago. So I was thinking that this course has been establised for 10 yrs and I would think that a redesign is not the best idea for us. We have players from the coast that have been playing in the DRO for many years and I would assume that they would like alts vs a whole redesign. It would be quicker and easier to just slap in some alt anchors and more the direction that downriver needs. We have a new course coming up at peoples park that we could have a better design for various shot selections. I think we would have a better chance to capture more discgolfers interest if we just did a slight change by adding alts rather than trying to get them to like a redesign, which we know would get a lot of negative feedback. So what I'm saying is we add alt pin locations and fix what holes we need to accommodate the parks dept guidelines. Let me know what you think.

[Parks]

I'm cool with whatever, and trust your judgment on whether C-Re's layout is worth doing or not.

If you wanna do alt pins/slight redesign to fit Parks Dept. requirements, then hit me up because I have some good ideas.

[catalystdg]

i'm fine with whatever but i really don't think alts would work beacause there are a few holes we have to scratch altogether( being that there can be no possibility that a shot could go over the banks) and in my opinion the the course wasn't very good to start with.

[Eric whippet Brown]

I know that we have to move a cpl holes away from the rivers banks, but that shouldn't be hard to figure out. 10's basket I know is to close to the waters edge but we have old 8's fairway to use and there could be a nice hole there? A lil thinking and we can get this done easily before DRO and that way we could have alts in play by then.

[catalystdg]

i think either way it should be done easily by dro
but hole 2,3 need changed and old 10,11 and old 18 all have to be comletely removed

[Sean Johnson]

I'm all about squeezing as much variety out of our courses as possible. For me, I would take the current layout with alt pins (and maybe a few alt teepads?) over a new layout with only one pin placement per hole. Also, I'm sure that there is a finite amount of money and resources for this project. If we went with alt pins, would that free up more resources for People's Park or other projects?

[catalystdg]

the new layout has alt pins for all 18 holes so there is alot less work and alot more variety with the new layout. plus the club has voted and approved the new layout allready so if it doesn't happen it just shows the complete lack of integrity of the board and the fact that they don't really care what the club members want ( the club has voted for a complete redesign several times over the last year) this is the reason i am no longer a club member

[Eric whippet Brown]

I think the redesign was a good idea last year when we didn't have peoples park. That's why I'm for alt pins at downriver and spend more time desiging and planning on peoples park. Now that we have peoples park we have a fresh pc of land to work with and would make more sense to just tweak downriver. We could save money by putting in alts and new tee signs. I can understand people wanting to vote for a new course and how it came to pass without any one playing on it is what I don't understand, we do have buckets we could set up and try playing the proposed course. I think there would have to be a lot of trimming in order for the layout to be fun to play. With my alt pins I can have them made in a week and put in the ground in a day and yes we will put the anchors in without filling them up with concrete like some of the anchors at HB, that was part and still is a problem there.

[Parks]

Wait, you're not supposed to fill the hole where the pole goes with concrete? That's weird.

[SDGA]

The SDGA has given the current Facilities Coordinator Eric Brown our complete confidence concerning changes to the Downriver Disc Golf Course. We are sure that Eric will use his best judgement in these matters.

The establishment of the People's Park Disc Golf Course at this time has a higher priority as opposed to the Downriver upgrade. When the People's Park Course is finished we will be able to talk with the Parks Department concerning Camp Sekani. Both People's Park and Camp Sekani are projects that the Parks Dept. approached us about.

[catalystdg]

The SDGA has given the current Facilities Coordinator Eric Brown our complete confidence concerning changes to the Downriver Disc Golf Course. We are sure that Eric will use his best judgement in these matters.

The establishment of the People's Park Disc Golf Course at this time has a higher priority as opposed to the Downriver upgrade. When the People's Park Course is finished we will be able to talk with the Parks Department concerning Camp Sekani. Both People's Park and Camp Sekani are projects that the Parks Dept. approached us about.

thats great but he shouldn't be able to override what the club already voted and approved
the club voted and approved the new layout (giving me final say on the design, and voted downriver as our number one priority) just my oppinion but the board should not be able to go above the club and override club desisions.

[Eric whippet Brown]

Well let's revote? I have talked with a lot of golfers about alts and there more for alts than a redesign. I just think that with the redesign job that was offered that we would be where were at with highbridge, and that's me coming in and cleaning up the mess from the gung ho work parties that can slash and clear trails for fairways and then just leave it up to others like me to fix? Its funny how a cpl golfers can design the alts at highbridge yet I never seen them again to help what was done down there, we still have 8 anchors in the ground across the street that need pulled and I can only imagine how long it would have taken to clean up all the lil 3-4 inch stubs of brush and trees that got cut and left in all the fairways. A good example would be new 13 at hb, wow let's cut a path because we have a chainsaw, I seen who and what was done on that hole and look where it is today, a shit load of stubs in the fairway that I will be cutting for weeks. So a redesign in my eyes is a lot more work than a design on a pc of paper, I think I can get a good work crew that will finish whatever we start and not just cut and run like the work parties at highbridge. I do want to thank workers at highbridge for making the alts happen but there has to be a plan for people to follow and steps to take to make the work parites more functional.

[catalystdg]

there was a plan for both highbridge and downriver both were given to the club and posted on the forum. you are the new facilities coordinator so organizing the work parties is your job. it just so happened that you got voted in in the middle of both projects. the problems with the work at highbridge was discussed and what we need to do in the future was adressed so bringing it up again and again is pretty lame.

[Parks]

Might be better for everyone to keep the more acerbic stuff to PM's.

[Wobbly Bob]

AMEN

[catalystdg]

i didn't think anything said on here was harsh in any way but if i offended anyone i'm sorry i was just trying to state my case. i think this should be brought up at the next club meeting and voted on, then we can move foreward either with installing the new design or submitting the alt pins to the parks for approval.

[prospect]

I am not a member of the SDGA, but there definitely needs to be some direction implemented here. However, direction (or criticism) from former club members is not helpful. Since Eric is Facilities Coordinator, and has been elected as such, he should have support from the club to do what needs to be done. As far as Downriver is concerned, I say comply with Parks Dept requests to have holes moved away from the river, and re-design those holes only. Put in alts for the rest, and start building the Inland Empire of Disc Golf at Sekani and People's Park.

[Stimpi]

The club is spread pretty thin, with several major projects in the works, and other potential projects in line. The overall club energy seems to be directed towards the new course projects (People's and Sekani), and less toward correcting faults in the current courses.
Personally, I'm all for MORE golf, more courses, BUT... I'd like to see Spokane have at least one nice, "finished" course. Meaning a course that a traveler could drive up to the #1 tee and proceed to play the course without having to wander around, guessing at the next target or tee location.
I like the alternates at High Bridge, and it is just a work party or two from being two complete, fun, layouts. Let's finish it.
Downriver is a beautiful location and was one of the toughest courses in the state, but it wasn't very cooperative to play. It's still a great place to play, and whatever layout gets completed will be fun. I'm leaning toward completing/ adjusting the current layout, with alternates if possible, and moving on to other parks. The Downriver ball Golf Course is the oldest in the city, not the toughest, or longest, but still a fun, playable course. Let's step in line with a cohesive, completely playable, course, famous for it's history and beauty, not it's difficulty.

[friable7]

The club is spread pretty thin, with several major projects in the works, and other potential projects in line. The overall club energy seems to be directed towards the new course projects (People's and Sekani), and less toward correcting faults in the current courses.
Personally, I'm all for MORE golf, more courses, BUT... I'd like to see Spokane have at least one nice, "finished" course. Meaning a course that a traveler could drive up to the #1 tee and proceed to play the course without having to wander around, guessing at the next target or tee location.
I like the alternates at High Bridge, and it is just a work party or two from being two complete, fun, layouts. Let's finish it.
Downriver is a beautiful location and was one of the toughest courses in the state, but it wasn't very cooperative to play. It's still a great place to play, and whatever layout gets completed will be fun. I'm leaning toward completing/ adjusting the current layout, with alternates if possible, and moving on to other parks. The Downriver ball Golf Course is the oldest in the city, not the toughest, or longest, but still a fun, playable course. Let's step in line with a cohesive, completely playable, course, famous for it's history and beauty, not it's difficulty.

Excellent points, Steve. For Downriver: addressing the initial issues with certain holes, creating alternates where they will not recreate the same types of issues and getting up signage makes sense to me given the "growth spurt" we are having. Who would have thunk even a year ago we would have such opportunities!

[catalystdg]

spent some time playing both layouts a downriver this morning and came up with what i see as the pros and cons to both layouts ( not sure what eric has planned for the changes) old layout with alts, pros are that it has been around for years, some very memorable holes, it is tried and true and people keep playing it and it will take 50-100 bucks less to finish, cons are that it is fairly easy with only a few chalanging holes and no accuracy really needed and some of the best ( my opinion) holes 2,3,8,15 and toughest holes 9(old 11) have to be removed. the new layout pros it is a very chalanging course but with out adding to much distance ( overall a shorter course) releaves the most eroded and damaged parts of the course and lets the player appretiate the beauty of the area, the cons are it will take time to get used to it will take alot of work ( witch i have offered to do through my company) and it will cost a little more (again 50-100 bucks). again i am fine with either way as long as it is a decision made by the club members and not by the board.

[SDGA]

thats great but he shouldn't be able to override what the club already voted and approved
the club voted and approved the new layout (giving me final say on the design, and voted downriver as our number one priority) just my oppinion but the board should not be able to go above the club and override club desisions.

The #1 priority for the SDGA in 2009 was to send an SDGA delagation to the City of Spokane Valley and to Spokane County Parks to seek approval for SDGA installations in those juristictions. The SDGA Steward and the Public Relations Officer were the committee designated to lead this inquiry. The Public Relations Officer was the first appointee to be excused by the Steward in this effort. The SDGA Board, having recieved no reports back from the Steward on this front,was the second party to be excused by the Steward to be privy to progress on this paramount issue. After an entire summer of waiting and pressing for information on this highest priority matter the Board and the Club were finally informed that the then SDGA Steward, another member of the Board and another Club Member had formed their own club and were negotiating on their own to install two new courses: one at Plantt's Ferry and the other at Gateway Park near Stateline. That two new courses were about to be installed in the valley is good news; that the then Steward, his Board member and another Club member 'spirited' away this Club's perogitives and derailed the Club's mission for 2009 is a grave missappropriation of the SDGA's good name. At this time it is crucial for this Club to again re-engage these Valley entities to determine if they understand that they are working with the SDGA or not. If so, there is a whole whale of opprotunity for us that exceeds even our current massive undertakings; if not, then we are still very fortunate to have the excellent sites to develope that are on the books now. Given that elected representitives of this Club have in the past used their association with the Club to forward their own specific interests at the expense of the Club's stated objective in no way inhibits this Club or the current Board from doing what's best for this Club in the right way and at the right time. SDGA

[catalystdg]

The #1 priority for the SDGA in 2009 was to send an SDGA delagation to the City of Spokane Valley and to Spokane County Parks to seek approval for SDGA installations in those juristictions. The SDGA Steward and the Public Relations Officer were the committee designated to lead this inquiry. The Public Relations Officer was the first appointee to be excused by the Steward in this effort. The SDGA Board, having recieved no reports back from the Steward on this front,was the second party to be excused by the Steward to be privy to progress on this paramount issue. After an entire summer of waiting and pressing for information on this highest priority matter the Board and the Club were finally informed that the then SDGA Steward, another member of the Board and another Club Member had formed their own club and were negotiating on their own to install two new courses: one at Plantt's Ferry and the other at Gateway Park near Stateline. That two new courses were about to be installed in the valley is good news; that the then Steward, his Board member and another Club member 'spirited' away this Club's perogitives and derailed the Club's mission for 2009 is a grave missappropriation of the SDGA's good name. At this time it is crucial for this Club to again re-engage these Valley entities to determine if they understand that they are working with the SDGA or not. If so, there is a whole whale of opprotunity for us that exceeds even our current massive undertakings; if not, then we are still very fortunate to have the excellent sites to develope that are on the books now. Given that elected representitives of this Club have in the past used their association with the Club to forward their own specific interests at the expense of the Club's stated objective in no way inhibits this Club or the current Board from doing what's best for this Club in the right way and at the right time. SDGA

yes at the beginning of 2009 expanding toward the valley was one of our #1 objectives, however alot of your other information is incorect. and the accusation that " elected representitives of this Club have in the past used their association with the Club to forward their own specific interests at the expense of the Club's stated objective" is completely false. the clubs job is to promote and improve the sport of disc golf, if a club member or another board member helps another club in some way that does not hurt the sdga nor does it hurt disc golf, in my opinion the more the merrier.

[Stimpi]

yes at the beginning of 2009 expanding toward the valley was one of our #1 objectives, however alot of your other information is incorect. and the accusation that " elected representitives of this Club have in the past used their association with the Club to forward their own specific interests at the expense of the Club's stated objective" is completely false. the clubs job is to promote and improve the sport of disc golf, if a club member or another board member helps another club in some way that does not hurt the sdga nor does it hurt disc golf, in my opinion the more the merrier.

but... An entity (club, business, citizen) has a reputation and responsibilities to uphold. We all represent the Club, but how many of us are responsible FOR the Club, and the Club's best interests. We, as a Club, have chosen to lay the responsibility on a Board, and chosen the members of that board.
That entity is for the good of the Club, and hopefully the Club, working as a united force, will be for the betterment of disc golf in general.
I wouldn't want someone promoting, in my name, disc golf or anything else I do, by representing themselves as from: Stimpi Ridge Disc Golf, or Mechanic On the Move, without my knowledge and approval. If they had my approval and then take my reputation to make contacts and deals, then create their own business/club to compete with mine. I suppose that is considered just good business, in some circles, but it sounds a little dirty to me.
I wear many hats, one of which is a member and representative of the SDGA, but when I'm working a deal, I make sure people know which hat I'm wearing.

For those of you hating the stupid club, at least give us credit for our continuing efforts on the two existing courses, which has built us a strong enough reputation that the "City" is now knocking on our door, requesting that we hurry up our efforts to place courses in wonderful areas that we've only dreamed about having courses, until now. That's what a good reputation will get you. When you're out complaining about how rundown, too easy, too difficult, and just how wrong everything is, thank the club we even have courses to play on.
Everybody, please stop being so negative. Let's play disc golf and work together to build our courses, and try to teach the uncaring public to care for our courses.

[friable7]

The #1 priority for the SDGA in 2009 was to send an SDGA delagation to the City of Spokane Valley and to Spokane County Parks to seek approval for SDGA installations in those juristictions. The SDGA Steward and the Public Relations Officer were the committee designated to lead this inquiry. The Public Relations Officer was the first appointee to be excused by the Steward in this effort. The SDGA Board, having recieved no reports back from the Steward on this front,was the second party to be excused by the Steward to be privy to progress on this paramount issue. After an entire summer of waiting and pressing for information on this highest priority matter the Board and the Club were finally informed that the then SDGA Steward, another member of the Board and another Club Member had formed their own club and were negotiating on their own to install two new courses: one at Plantt's Ferry and the other at Gateway Park near Stateline. That two new courses were about to be installed in the valley is good news; that the then Steward, his Board member and another Club member 'spirited' away this Club's perogitives and derailed the Club's mission for 2009 is a grave missappropriation of the SDGA's good name. At this time it is crucial for this Club to again re-engage these Valley entities to determine if they understand that they are working with the SDGA or not. If so, there is a whole whale of opprotunity for us that exceeds even our current massive undertakings; if not, then we are still very fortunate to have the excellent sites to develope that are on the books now. Given that elected representitives of this Club have in the past used their association with the Club to forward their own specific interests at the expense of the Club's stated objective in no way inhibits this Club or the current Board from doing what's best for this Club in the right way and at the right time. SDGA

I appreciate any effort by the Board to to clarify with the past Steward or those "entities" that may still be spearheading courses in the Valley. Perhaps the Board will then be able to move forward with developing a formal "One, Two or Five Year Plan" that the Membership can look at and know the direction we are moving. In paraphrasing General Eisenhower talking about D-Day: the plan is everthing. Like a compass, it tells you what direction you were headed until you have to change things...!

I would ask everyone to remember that this is a public forum. You need not sign up to view the material here. The public, the City, potential donors can all come "a-looking" to see how we do what we do. We all may forget what was said but the Forum does not. There are other ways to share opinions and information if it gets too sensitive, contoversial or downright heated.

I am lovin' the peak energy aound disc golf in Spokane. It won't last forever so we need to be focused, and concentrate on solidifying any gains.

Tim N.

[Sky Pilot]

The #1 priority for the SDGA in 2009 was to send an SDGA delagation to the City of Spokane Valley and to Spokane County Parks to seek approval for SDGA installations in those juristictions. The SDGA Steward and the Public Relations Officer were the committee designated to lead this inquiry. The Public Relations Officer was the first appointee to be excused by the Steward in this effort. The SDGA Board, having recieved no reports back from the Steward on this front,was the second party to be excused by the Steward to be privy to progress on this paramount issue. After an entire summer of waiting and pressing for information on this highest priority matter the Board and the Club were finally informed that the then SDGA Steward, another member of the Board and another Club Member had formed their own club and were negotiating on their own to install two new courses: one at Plantt's Ferry and the other at Gateway Park near Stateline. That two new courses were about to be installed in the valley is good news; that the then Steward, his Board member and another Club member 'spirited' away this Club's perogitives and derailed the Club's mission for 2009 is a grave missappropriation of the SDGA's good name. At this time it is crucial for this Club to again re-engage these Valley entities to determine if they understand that they are working with the SDGA or not. If so, there is a whole whale of opprotunity for us that exceeds even our current massive undertakings; if not, then we are still very fortunate to have the excellent sites to develope that are on the books now. Given that elected representitives of this Club have in the past used their association with the Club to forward their own specific interests at the expense of the Club's stated objective in no way inhibits this Club or the current Board from doing what's best for this Club in the right way and at the right time. SDGA

On this issue... I have spoken with the County about this and they are not working with the SDGA on this matter.

Sky Pilot

[friable7]

On this issue... I have spoken with the County about this and they are not working with the SDGA on this matter.

Sky Pilot

Spokane Valley is an incorporated entitiy. Is Plantes Ferry within the incorporated area? IF there is any doubt, the Board would be wise to check with the City of Spokane Valley and any Neighborhood Council(s) in the area. Let's not leave it to chance and omit someone from the process and expect the outcome will always be good...(as in the case of the People's Park Community Neighborhood Council). If all stakeholders have been contacted and they send a congruent message, then it is time for us to move on with business. The next question will then be; what is the current and future plan(s) for SDGA in the greater Spokane area? PLENTY good coming our way! Tim N.

[Parks]

Poking around into such things will leave disc golfers seeming inconsistent and disorganized, as well as add confusion to the process of the Valley club getting courses in.

Jeff had a contact in the county so he could ask the question casually without confusing things.

I don't see any reason not to trust that the Valley club is representing themselves as... themselves. Let them do their thing and we can do ours.

[Timber]

Plantes Ferry Park is in Spokane County, not COSV.

So, re: the original question of DR design, the discussion feels a little nebulous because we don't really know what either option (all-new vs. just-fix-what-needs-fixing) looks like. I walked part of catalysts original proposed layout but I think that got tweaked later. Once we find out specifically what HAS to change and what CANNOT change to meet the Parks Dept requirements, I'd be willing to put together maps of the alternate proposed layouts for discussion and voting purposes, if that would be helpful.

[friable7]

Poking around into such things will leave disc golfers seeming inconsistent and disorganized, as well add confusion to the process of the Valley club getting courses in.

Jeff had a contact in the county so he could ask the question casually without confusing things.

I don't see any reason not to trust that the Valley club is representing themselves as... themselves. Let them do their thing and we can do ours.

I'm certainly happy with that. Thanks for the clarification. Tim N.

[Parks]

Attached is the final redesign proposal.

Eric has some ideas about the alt pins and changing only the required holes. Only holes 2 and 15 pose problems where it is hard to find a good solution.

Moving up 2's tee closer to the rocks and moving the pin back and to the right some could work. It would add a buffer of 20-30 feet more in between the basket and the river and would point the tee more away from the river. This would, of course, point it more at 17's green, but that green is also easily visible from the tee.

The only solution I could see for 15 is moving the teepad up the path and maybe moving the basket a little deeper into the woods. This would turn a solid hole into a weak one, but would resolve the erosion issue without having to completely redo all the holes.

I've heard people suggest using 15's old tee, but that throws right over 14's pin and also still has a large risk of kicking down the hillside due to the angle of the tee.

A third solution would be to get the city arborist in there to allow us to clear some of the more unhealthy overgrowth back in that area that could let us make a better hole, but I don't think he has got back to Jeff yet. If we could do this we could definitely use the hole from DRO/C-Re's layout that is L shaped near the road, and it could also give the first solution a more viable green/fairway.

[catalystdg]

jeff and i walked the back side with the arborist's boss yesterday and although we can't personally cut anything they can come in and do some thinning which will make the new layout possible or we could possibly move 17 back 20-30 feet ( both teepad and pin) and play old 18 ? not sure what else to do back there, the new dogleg hole could also be used, i am curious to see what eric has come up with for the alts/changes.

[Parks]

Any ETA on the thinning or is he just throwing that out there?

[catalystdg]

i don't think it would be right away

[Sky Pilot]

The City Arborist was not willing to cut down any stand of trees. He is also not going to allow us to do any cutting. He did seem willing to come down and point out some trees that we could thin in places and have his co-worker arborist do the cutting. However that still begs the question of what exactly we are going to do down there. I would ideally like to see Eric and Chris Re' find some agreement if possible. If not, the board or the club will have to make a final decision.

[Yoduh]

Many courses have been in the ground way longer than Downriver and have been changed due to many circumstances. We have a fairly young course compared to most in the state and it's not a surprise that things would be changed one day. I have loved and grown my roots at Downriver but I feel that a change could do us some good. If it can be done for cheap than even better. Figuring out a patch job for our current course just serves to me a painful reminder of what we used to have. Every time I walk by hole 6 and 8 I am wishing I was launching instead of traipsing through the woods. The course has gotten easier and easier and another patch job pretty much renders it useless for a professional level tournament. I will always remember the old course but a new course can still help make us all better golfers.
It doesn't make sense to keep spreading ourselves thinner and thinner. With no projects actually completed we do not have one concrete course we can point to as our gem. Sort of sad to think of that since we have been here for 10 years. I do feel that there is a resurgence of club members getting involved and the more efforts we get from everyone the more can be accomplished which is very exciting! I recommend that we forget about dollars and cents. That we strongly look at what Eric is proposing and what Christopher is proposing and ask ourselves 2 questions.. 1) Will this course make better golfers? 2) Will this course be something we can all be proud of? We are raising money at a very good clip right now and spending a little extra to have a nice finished product seems to have the biggest payoff.. Unless everyone in Spokane is just so used to everything being unfinished that we are all ok with it..

[Yoduh]

If we aren't satisfied with Eric's or Christopher's than it is time to go back to the drawing board and not accept mediocrity!

[Yoduh]

I am wondering why there is a person posting as the SDGA.. Seems like our club members if spoken for, should be by at the very least the club president (aka stewart.. I mean Stew ward). Seems as if there was some irony in the non SDGA posts.. I will call it nonsdga because it absolutely impossible to state that you don't want someone representing your club in a fictitious manner if that is in fact what you are doing. If there is an actual voice here of the SDGA it would be Sky Pilot or Parks. Both are confirmed board members and seem to represent the club fairly well with accurate statements. I would appreciate it if the NONSDGA would step out from behind the curtain of the clubs non copyrighted, but copyrightable label and makeup an interesting name or their real name for all to see. Until such has happened I have to say to the users of this forum that in no way does the user, the SDGA, opinions or dreamed up instances reflect the actual attitude and position of the actual SDGA. I wouldn't want somebody doing car work or blaming people for unfounded things in my good name :cool2:

[Yoduh]

Eric BC the Whippet is also a confirmed board member.

[Parks]

I created the SDGA account for official announcements and times when it needed to be made clear that the person was not just giving their opinion and in fact speaking for the SDGA. I gave the password to all board members for this purpose.

It isn't really there for discussion, especially if there's any controversy involved.

[Yoduh]

That sounds good but doesn't really work. I would suggest adding your title to your user name as a signature that way you can post things on the SDGA's and user's will see who you are. Most people can decipher opinion from an actual fact that has to do with the SDGA. The SDGA user on this forum seems to be arguing and make accusations which is not the position of the club or it's members

[Yoduh]

As a person with a user name and a password you can easily change the password and hijack the user name, or post things at a later date after your term of office has ended. With the board only thinking of 6 possible users they cannot know who posted what. It is a bad idea. Just post under your name like everybody else on the forum.

[Parks]

As a person with a user name and a password you can easily change the password and hijack the user name, or post things at a later date after your term of office has ended.

If the user name is hijacked, then I can have Adam kill the account. The pw will be changed and resent to current board members if there is a change.

With the board only thinking of 6 possible users they cannot know who posted what.

If its announcements/official club stuff that are being posted, then I don't care who posted what.

If people are arguing and debating under the user name, then I know who posted what. You do, too.

The SDGA username was mis-used previously and if it happens again I'll put an end to it.

It is a bad idea. Just post under your name like everybody else on the forum.

The reason I created it was because it came into question whether board members were representing the club's opinion on here.

When I post on here, I represent my own opinion only, which may be different from the rest of the board's opinion, which may be different from the membership at large's opinion.

[Eric whippet Brown]

Damn now your going to find out who did it, and I think it was................not me, ha I don't know the password..:angel:

[Parks]

Damn now your going to find out who did it, and I think it was................not me, ha I don't know the password..:angel:

I bet if you search your e-mails then you would know it :D

[Yoduh]

Why don't you use the password to edit those posts and then we hopefully won't have this problem again... I thought it was Eric the whole time.. wonder who it was?

[Dadio!]

So does this mean DR is going to look like the PDF posted? I like the looks of it, got macked in the neck last month and am now very leery of close holes. I like the old layout of DR but with changes that needed to be made no longer flows. It is a great location and I look forward to a revamped course that will really shine for Spokane.

[Yoduh]

So does this mean DR is going to look like the PDF posted? I like the looks of it, got macked in the neck last month and am now very leery of close holes. I like the old layout of DR but with changes that needed to be made no longer flows. It is a great location and I look forward to a revamped course that will really shine for Spokane.

I agree, I think it's even more dangerous than it used to be.. Hole 1 is a good place to die.. If your putting and don't make it to hole 2 sucks to be you.. or even me if it happens.. I would put the teepad back where it used to be.. New players can easily hit people on one from hole 11 and they don't even know they are bombing on them. Sure on hole 11 you are under fire from 16 but if you are good enough to throw that far you know to yell fore.. same thing if you yank a drive on from 11 far enough to land down by 1 you know to holler. It's all just a temporary fix as we need to figure out a new course to follow the city's request to change our course. There is no way add alternates to keep the course the way it has been:(

[Yoduh]

Hello?? Anyone? Ferris? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

[Timber]

Hello?? Anyone? Ferris? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?
I believe some changes have been approved, but you would have to check with the board for specifics.

[Yoduh]

REALLY?? I am only talking about 1 change. Just a safety concern. Lucky nobody has gotten hurt and our weather has been crappy. On a mega busy day it's goin to happen..

[Sky Pilot]

Yes it is true. The SDGA board approved changes for 5 holes to comply with the City's request that we stay away from erosion on the banks. A map will be posted soon. More later.

Sky Pilot
:angel:

Yoduh - call me

[Wobbly Bob]

Hello?? Anyone? Ferris? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

The SDGA Board met on Satuday, June 12 to hammer out the details for the changes made to Downriver.

The changes that we voted in were:


Hole 2 would be changed such that the teepad will be moved somewhere near the "fishing sign" and the pin will be moved to the right some to direct discs away from the river and bank. Hole 2's current teepad can be left in place and used for Hole 12.


Hole 3 would be moved down the hill to prevent erosion behind the teepad. The pin would be moved up the hill to reduce the chance of discs going into the river or toward 4's teepad.


Holes 7's teepad will be moved back and to the left to direct discs more away from the river on the drive.


Hole 8's pin will be moved inland. The specifics are up in the air, but the shot everyone seemed to like was in between the area for 7's current teepad and old 8's fairway. The changes for hole 7 and 8 will ensure that the fairways don't cross, the hole 7 teepad area will be safer, and will alleviate the erosion issue near hole 8's pin.


Hole 14's teepad and pin will be moved back about 30 feet to allow more room for hole 15 to be adjusted without really changing the shot.


Hole 15's teepad and pin will be adjusted to prevent discs from going over the eroded hillside. An exact setup wasn't laid out, but it will likely be using the old teepad and the pin will probably be moved a little shorter and to the right.


Those are all the changes that were voted on.

There is also a suggestion to change holes 6 and 9, but it was deemed non-critical since the erosion along 9 is negligible since it is mostly rocky terrain on the bank. Its possible that those two holes could be changed in the future, but it is low priority.

[SeanT00]

Can't say I like the new layout, but if the city if forcing your hand then..... I wish I had seen that Downriver was going to be changed because I would've tried to offer some input prior to the vote. But I'll offer it anyways, at least for hole 15. There is already an alternate teepad in a grand location closer to the basket and to the right of the current position (with small log in place for seating). My friends and I use this location to avoid having to chase the occasional bad shot down the hill (not that we're bad, we all usually shoot around 5 or so). This now becomes a shot requiring more accuracy than power and creates a much tighter fairway that steers clear of the bank. This would be a relatively inexpensive change requiring only the work to move the pad/sign instead of moving the basket, additional work for tree removal, and cleanup. The only issue this position has right now is some slight crossfire with 14 that isn't any worse than any other 'bad spot' on the course. This could also allow 14 to stay in it's current position and remain a hole that my friends and I all enjoy very much. Take it or leave it, but I like it!

[Burge]

There is already an alternate teepad in a grand location closer to the basket and to the right of the current position (with small log in place for seating). This now becomes a shot requiring more accuracy than power and creates a much tighter fairway that steers clear of the bank. This would be a relatively inexpensive change requiring only the work to move the pad/sign instead of moving the basket, additional work for tree removal, and cleanup. The only issue this position has right now is some slight crossfire with 14 that isn't any worse than any other 'bad spot' on the course. This could also allow 14 to stay in it's current position and remain a hole that my friends and I all enjoy very much. Take it or leave it, but I like it!

Where your suggesting sounds pretty much like the old teepad...like what Bob was saying:

6. Hole 15's teepad and pin will be adjusted to prevent discs from going over the eroded hillside. An exact setup wasn't laid out, but it will likely be using the old teepad and the pin will probably be moved a little shorter and to the right.


and moving the pin closer and to the right will not only make the shot about control, but it will also take care of the safety issue of drives with too much gas flying into 13's fairway.

[Yoduh]

A more watered down version of Downriver? exciting! Way to go SDGA! Dunno what happened to lets redesign our course. The club voted for it. (the actual members) We have a new design that is ALOT better than these changes but I guess we need to remarginalize an already marginalized course just so that we don't change a 10 year old course that used to be pretty good. Guess we can just wait a couple years till Gordy retires and all go pay to play his course...

[Parks]

Was there a single proposed re-design that was realistically feasible given the restrictions of the park?

[Yoduh]

Was there a single proposed re-design that was realistically feasible given the restrictions of the park?

Yes there is. I wouldn't have said there was if there wasn't, It is a combination of few golfers ideas..

[Parks]

Please share.

I never saw one that could work, even though there were some fantastic holes.

[Yoduh]

Please share.
I never saw one that could work, even though there were some fantastic holes.

I would love to as long as you could assure me that there is actually a point. If the board has made up it's mind then it is pointless for now. I really would love to see Downriver stay a tough, fun and actually increase the flow of the course as well as abide with the cities request to greatly decrease the erosion, especially by the river. Kevin has seen the design and liked it, I think Jeff has too. Eric saw it and didn't want to spend the money to redesign the whole course. I think he is more interested in spending our money to get new courses in. I feel like it is going to be easy to raise money for our new courses because I think there are alot of motivated people in our community ready to bring in more disc golf.

[coryreu]

Is there any way to let a LARGE group of club members/golfers PLAY a layout instead of just talking about it on a forum, in a club meeting, or drawing it up on an aerial photo. At this point, personally, I don't think the ideas and approval of a few golfers is going to be trusted or pleasing to a majority. Christopher took this approach when he came up with a proposal. His layout may not have been pleasing to everyone, or fit the parameters of the parks dept. But just the way he went about it, letting people see it before a vote was a taken, was a great idea. It took a lot of effort. I give him huge kudos for that. Lets see what the ideas of a few golfers are. In my opinion, that could be the best way to go about this dilemma of getting a new layout set in place. It may take some hard work, but it certainly would not be pointless.

[Parks]

I would love to as long as you could assure me that there is actually a point. If the board has made up it's mind then it is pointless for now. I really would love to see Downriver stay a tough, fun and actually increase the flow of the course as well as abide with the cities request to greatly decrease the erosion, especially by the river. Kevin has seen the design and liked it, I think Jeff has too. Eric saw it and didn't want to spend the money to redesign the whole course. I think he is more interested in spending our money to get new courses in. I feel like it is going to be easy to raise money for our new courses because I think there are alot of motivated people in our community ready to bring in more disc golf.

Who's design was it? I may have seen it. Or what were some example holes?

[Yoduh]

Who's design was it? I may have seen it. Or what were some example holes?

It is a hybrid of course ideas submitted by sdga members when we were originally going to redesign Downriver because the club had voted to do such. The design has been tweaked several times by C'RE to also follow the city's criteria. I think it's a pretty good quality design of a piece of land that is very difficult use with our limitations.. It is certainly quite a bit better than what we are about to have. One of the teepads was from 4's basket out towards old 11's tee.. There was a plan to bring in an back hoe and build a teepad out of the sand pile right next to 1's teepad that would play similar but longer than old 20. The cost to have everything done was $500 and it included a large amount of "tricking" our course out with really nice landscaping, That included building really nice tee areas and a couple of elevated greens.

[Parks]

I've seen C-Re's proposal, although I may not have seen all the revisions to it. Is there a map floating around?

Regardless, what we are going to do should play about as well as the current layout, and will fix both erosion and crossing fairway issues.

Hole 12 (tennis court hole) will be both harder and more fair since it will be a bit longer and using 2's old teepad instead of a sloped piece of concrete.

Hole 2 will be shorter and easier, but it was never a great hole. It was just a question of whether you could throw 400 feet or not. The only obstacle was the river bank, which we can't use as an obstacle. No loss there.

Hole 3 will play a little harder. Before, it was just green management, but now its about green management and shooting uphill. Downriver doesn't have an uphill shot with as much elevation as this, so it is diversifying the shots at the course. I see this as a good thing.

Hole 7 will play harder, and with a more obvious fairway. It will be close to a par 4, rather than the previous par 3.5.

Hole 8 was previously the best hole at Downriver in terms of golf, so its a shame to nerf this one. However, the replacement hole is good, and doesn't have crossing fairway or erosion problems. It doesn't have as much of a chance at bogey, but there is a nice risk/reward going for the deuce.

Hole 14 will remain essentially the same, although shifted slightly to allow more room to work with for 15.

Hole 15 will inevitably be easier, but the erosion on the hillside is ridiculous and needs to be addressed. It was a good hole, and is the only true "watering down" of the course for the new positions. However, there is no other good solution for this hole.

What I'm getting at is that I don't see this as a watering down of the course, especially since some of the holes are actually better and offer some shots that aren't currently there.

What exactly besides hole 15 do you see as a "watering down" of the course?

[Sky Pilot]

I've seen C-Re's proposal, although I may not have seen all the revisions to it. Is there a map floating around?

Regardless, what we are going to do should play about as well as the current layout, and will fix both erosion and crossing fairway issues.

Hole 12 (tennis court hole) will be both harder and more fair since it will be a bit longer and using 2's old teepad instead of a sloped piece of concrete.

Hole 2 will be shorter and easier, but it was never a great hole. It was just a question of whether you could throw 400 feet or not. The only obstacle was the river bank, which we can't use as an obstacle. No loss there.

Hole 3 will play a little harder. Before, it was just green management, but now its about green management and shooting uphill. Downriver doesn't have an uphill shot with as much elevation as this, so it is diversifying the shots at the course. I see this as a good thing.

Hole 7 will play harder, and with a more obvious fairway. It will be close to a par 4, rather than the previous par 3.5.

Hole 8 was previously the best hole at Downriver in terms of golf, so its a shame to nerf this one. However, the replacement hole is good, and doesn't have crossing fairway or erosion problems. It doesn't have as much of a chance at bogey, but there is a nice risk/reward going for the deuce.

Hole 14 will remain essentially the same, although shifted slightly to allow more room to work with for 15.

Hole 15 will inevitably be easier, but the erosion on the hillside is ridiculous and needs to be addressed. It was a good hole, and is the only true "watering down" of the course for the new positions. However, there is no other good solution for this hole.

What I'm getting at is that I don't see this as a watering down of the course, especially since some of the holes are actually better and offer some shots that aren't currently there.

What exactly besides hole 15 do you see as a "watering down" of the course?


I thought I should probably weigh in here...

I appreciate the dissappointment I hear in Yoduh's writing. I too have been frustrated. When we approved Chris's plan in January of 2010 - I fully believed that we were going to implement the design. In fact, I met with Taylor Bressler that same week and he approved the layout. What surprised me was the fact that when we 'gave' the implementation to Eric the Facilities Coordinator to bring it to pass - it didn't come to pass. Eric didn't like the re-design (as I understand it) and proposed 'alt' pins over 'redesign'. I was surprised - but, hey - it was literally 'out of my hands'. So, I began working with Eric to formulate just what ideas he had for 'alt' pins. I actually began to like the idea of 'alt' pins as opposed to a complete redesign, due to the fact that this had literally revitalized Highbridge. So, we walked and talked and finally came up with a 'minimal changes approach' that would satisfy the Park Department and still (I fully agree with Lyle here) be an improvement in some ways and unfortunately a compromise in others - Hole #8.
Following this as I studied Chris Re's plan further there was one aspect of it that I didn't think was an improvement. What I didn't like was having the area that is currently where the 'table' is located be a green for one of the holes. It seemed to me that this area between current hole #1's tee and hole #17's tee is a 'natural' area (near the parking lot) - for a gathering place. I didn't like the proposal of having 'tourney central' located where old hole #1's tee used to be.
Keep in mind that we are 'stewards' of these beautiful spaces of land under the auspices of the Spokane Parks Department. They could easily wave their hand and we'd be kicked out like an intruder and forced to play out of town. So, under the pressure to 'comply' with the edicts of the powers that be - I pushed for a vote of 'compliance' with the authorities.
There's no doubt in my mind that Yoduh is quite good at designing however, (as I'm sure he knows) that doesn't mean that he will always see his desires implemented.
So, we have been around and around the block for quite sometime and I for one am quite glad that we are finally going to do something. Honestly, I can't figure out what's so bad about it. I personally like the changes 'additions' that have occurred at Highbridge, and I'm looking forward to the changes and the installation of some 'alt' pins at Downriver.
On another (but related topic...) Sure it's great to conquer new lands and fully redesign new courses but what bugs me is that we don't seem to have much value in making our courses 'functional' for the newbie or the visitor or for the 'frequent' user for that matter. I'm still having to tell people how to navigate the course whenever i'm at Downriver. So, along with all of this I'm committed to making the courses more accessible and welcoming, such as getting the parking lot 'redone' and having them cut a walking path through the dirt piled along the edge of the parking lot.
In addition, at our last Board meeting I pushed for Tim Barber's 'reflow' of the course. This was (in my opinion) a much better layout for our current course. This 'reflow' eliminated the giant walk and confusion (of some) between hole 10 and 11, hole 16 and 17. It was just a better 'walking plan' overall. This was not approved.
What else has been happening to accomplish this?
As far as that goes I've spoken with the Parks department and they are building 2 nice signs for us, for our courses. I am also currently working on a professional Brochure that will enable visitors to get comprehensive information about the SDGA - which will include a nice map of each course. These will soon be available at the courses. A fellow disc golfer has offered to pay for this design and Tim Barber's son - a graphic arts student - will help with the layout.
This in addition to raising hundreds of dollars in the program that I've implemented to obtain sponsors for the courses.
In conclusion,
By implementing the 'minimal changes' approved by the Board of Directors of the SDGA - we are not closing the book on Downriver and it's future potential or possibilities. This however, has been a very 'daunting' process. It may be that a complete redesign of Downriver would have to be put into the capable hands of an 'out of town' designer. That way it would get done and we wouldn't be able to blame or tweak or whine about the conclusions that this person is contracted to accomplish.

[Yoduh]

I've seen C-Re's proposal, although I may not have seen all the revisions to it. Is there a map floating around?

Regardless, what we are going to do should play about as well as the current layout, and will fix both erosion and crossing fairway issues.

Hole 12 (tennis court hole) will be both harder and more fair since it will be a bit longer and using 2's old teepad instead of a sloped piece of concrete

Hole 12 was already a pretty good hole with not a huge gap to hit I feel like it is a quintessential Mid range shot. I think it will become much more poke and hope quite simply

Hole 2 will be shorter and easier, but it was never a great hole. It was just a question of whether you could throw 400 feet or not. The only obstacle was the river bank, which we can't use as an obstacle. No loss there.

Hole 2 was a very good hole in that even if you could not throw 400 feet you have to throw a precise tricky up shot and the putt can roll away. The new hole is decent but we will be hitting an already dead tree much more frequently and with all the other holes being lengthened or shortened where is the good openish long hole on the course?

Hole 3 will play a little harder. Before, it was just green management, but now its about green management and shooting uphill. Downriver doesn't have an uphill shot with as much elevation as this, so it is diversifying the shots at the course. I see this as a good thing.

Hole 3 will be easier. Not as lucky as it used to be but the scoring average will go down.

Hole 7 will play harder, and with a more obvious fairway. It will be close to a par 4, rather than the previous par 3.5.

Can't say that I've ever really liked this hole but it will work. It will be a good am par 4 though..

Hole 8 was previously the best hole at Downriver in terms of golf, so its a shame to nerf this one. However, the replacement hole is good, and doesn't have crossing fairway or erosion problems. It doesn't have as much of a chance at bogey, but there is a nice risk/reward going for the deuce.

Is old 8's fairway being used?. Is hole 9 going to stay the same.. I took a double ob 9 on that hole before.. I'm sure there is some eroision issues here.

Hole 14 will remain essentially the same, although shifted slightly to allow more room to work with for 15.

Hole 15 will inevitably be easier, but the erosion on the hillside is ridiculous and needs to be addressed. It was a good hole, and is the only true "watering down" of the course for the new positions. However, there is no other good solution for this hole.

What about the slight(sarcasm) amount of erosion that occurs on hole 4?

What I'm getting at is that I don't see this as a watering down of the course, especially since some of the holes are actually better and offer some shots that aren't currently there.

What exactly besides hole 15 do you see as a "watering down" of the course?
That is all I see, The main thing is there isn't one hole on the course where I get to rip a driver. No old 20, where people would empty their bags, hole 2 is a good dangerous place to rip drives but our city courses dont have any holes that are just big rippers. I'm not the hugest fans of these types of holes but THEY NEED TO EXIST. Got more to say but I'm tired, gotta go to bed. Night all


I think 2

[Yoduh]

I don't see how where tournament central is located could be a reason why a course does or doesn't get put in. Like some how tournament central makes one bit of difference? Sounds about as nit picky as one can get but hey, way to look out for the disc golfer and their experience.. With all of the actual limitations we have on designing a course with a very complicated piece of land it seems quite strange that we would include something this arbitrary and artificial. Like 3 times a year when there is a tourney there the players are gonnna be like this just doesn't feel right, why is Gordy and Steve explaining the 10 meter rule right here when we should be over there? Next objection?

[Sky Pilot]

Let's be real. C'mon, did you miss the part where I approved the layout and obtained approval from Bressler? Hey, I was excited that something was going to happen.
The part about not liking the placement of Tourney Central was just my opinion after the fact. This was not a part of the decision to implement or not implement the course. As I said, we as a board gave that decision to Eric to either do or not do. I fully expected, as I said that he was going to do it.
However, since that time, I have also come to the opinion that a 'minimal changes approach' and alt pins would serve to enliven the course.
I repeat, for this and other reasons, that in my opinion if the course were to be completely revamped, (because of the continual disagreements) we would do well to contract with an out of town professional.

Sky Pilot
:angel:

[Yoduh]

I do not understand how the decision to change the course could be left in one golfers hand when the whole entire club had already decided to change the course. The board should not override the club. The board isn't the group of people that donate their money to the SDGA. We have had way to few club meetings where the club members are present. Instead the board decides that they are more important than the club members they represent. An out of town professional would have a tough time designing a good course here because of our huge stack of limitations. I say we present both ideas to the club members and have them vote on a favorite and call it a day. I would like to have a walk through with each designer Eric with his ideas and C'RE with his and vote on which has the best course idea. OR we could just have one guy decide what works best and call it good, sounds easy but it doesn't look good. Kind of the easy way out, sort of a you know we need to look like we did something here..

[Sky Pilot]

Yoduh,

I'm glad we're having this conversation. I have respect for you.

As I understand it... the Charter says that the club votes for a Board of Directors. By doing so the club members are putting their trust in us to lead. In order to change the way things are done, the Charter must be changed. When the Charter is changed this must be done by a majority vote of the Club Members, like when my title was changed from Steward to President.
We do not have a pure democracy, where every decision is made by a majority vote of the Membership. As I understand it, concerning non-Charter matters the board can make changes if it seems the way to go - but not on matters of Charter. So, if you want to change the club, you need be a Club Member, attend a meeting and present the amendments to the Charter that you wish to see implemented. Then if a majority of the Club Membership see it your way, things will be done differently.

You can view the SDGA Charter at www.sdga.us.

Sky Pilot
:angel:

[Yoduh]

Well it's about time to have another club meeting, It's been quite some time.. You actually mean that the club voted for the job of the president to be changed to the name stupid.. Maybe we are better off not having the club vote on things. What does it say about the clun voting on something and then the board being able to circumvent the club?

[Parks]

What does it say about the clun voting on something and then the board being able to circumvent the club?

The board needs to step in and make a decision when an issue like Downriver is on the agenda for two freaking years. Otherwise, its just treading water and nothing gets done.

Keep in mind that the options for the expansion of disc golf in Spokane were essentially limited to changing DR or HB when the club members voted to change Downriver, and also that a compliant design was never decided on.

After the board sat on its thumbs for a year, it was shit or get off the pot time. Our options were basically to pull the trigger on something similar to C-Re's design that was nerfed into compliance, or to try a minimal reworking of our current layout that would solve the worst issues at DR. We chose the second one because it would be unnecessary to change the whole course unless it was going to play significantly better.

If the reworked design from C-Re' that is compliant, realistic, and plays significantly better than our current layout at DR then please share.

You would not just be wasting your time. If I thought it was great, then I would be happy to ask the board to change its mind, although they might shoot me down.

[Sky Pilot]

Please re-read my post and then make a relevant comment - if not just drop it.

[Yoduh]

Really simply put. What is so hard about asking the club what they like better, Course A with said changes or course B? Does the club not matter in this situation? In 2 hours we can go ever both courses and make a real group decision. Or you can slap this together and pat yourself on the back for "accomplishing" something and ignore the grumblings around the disc golf course. If everyone comes and votes than we can handle the changes and bury it. If C'RE's design gets picked by the club than I will handle the fundraising which should take me all of a couple hours. I will have the funding ($500) in 24 hours. The course would be built by C'RE who is a very experienced landscaper.

[Sky Pilot]

Just so you know I suggested that we put out our portable buckets at Downriver and try out both courses. As I remember, no one else wanted to move them out of People's Park.

Sky Pilot
SDGA President
:angel:

[Yoduh]

I suggested that too!

[SeanT00]

Is there a current timeline for these changes to be implemented at Downriver?

[Gordy #21004]

Is there a current timeline for these changes to be implemented at Downriver?

I told Eric, Kevin, Jeff and Bob (Lyle not yet) that I am ready to get some workers together and begin on the changes for old #17 &18. Old #18 is where the worst erosion issue is so it would be a good place to start. Anchors are available for pin placement modification, new thick Launch Pads are in Club hands if needed and crushed gravel is piled in the parking lot. I am ready to organize and do this work as soon as the heat breaks. The balance of the work would follow but we'll need to get more gravel so the pads are sweet. Contact me 363-1056 or any Board member if you want to help. Gordy:chug:

[Yoduh]

The new thick launch pads are needed! What isn't needed is haste. I have seen the club waste this much time, what is the point of rushing right now? I do like your vigor though Gordy..

[Wobbly Bob]

Thanks to Gordy for the offer to lead a work party to start work at Downriver. The offer to organize a work party and then following through is how things get done in a volunteer group such as ours.

The changes to be made on new 14 & 15 have only been talked about and no one has made a map to designate where the elements of these two holes will actually be located. Those folks that make up the work party are the ones that will decide where the tee pad goes and where the pin actually gets installed.

I've got a new wheelbarrow to mix cement in for the anchors. I'll be there to help, call Gordy at 363-1056 if you have an interest in helping with this project.

[Yoduh]

I have to say I am appreciating the obstinance of this generation of disc golfers.. If you fellas (Gordy and Bob) haven't had the chance scroll up a page or so and then ask yourselves whether or not you represent the SDGA or your own interests.. And also whether or not you want to get things right or just get them done..

[Gordy #21004]

A bucket is on the way to use as a prop in identifying where the new pin placement for old #18 will be. The old tee location may prove to be the top candidate for the 'new' location but there are clearly other innovative options. Some flags are also in the 'shuffling' package. Special K suggested we use buckets to gather gravel from the pile in the parking lot and haul them by truck to near the prospective tee locations. It'll be easier than carting it by wheelbarrow down to the south gate. The objective for this change is to relieve the serious erosion happening down the steep slope to the left of the current fairway. Gordy. ps. there will also be some ribbon available if the suggestion of a mando comes up.:chug:

[Yoduh]

A bucket is on the way to use as a prop in identifying where the new pin placement for old #18 will be. The old tee location may prove to be the top candidate for the 'new' location but there are clearly other innovative options. Some flags are also in the 'shuffling' package. Special K suggested we use buckets to gather gravel from the pile in the parking lot and haul them by truck to near the prospective tee locations. It'll be easier than carting it by wheelbarrow down to the south gate. The objective for this change is to relieve the serious erosion happening down the steep slope to the left of the current fairway. Gordy. ps. there will also be some ribbon available if the suggestion of a mando comes up.:chug:
Is this a drunken message? Or is there actually a bucket making its way down there? Hopefully it Doesn't get lost. It probably has one of those new fandangled phones with google maps and gps.. Oh yes the "SHUFFLING PACKAGE" equipped with flags.. I also like the idea of curtailing the erosion of the left side of the fairway alot just not sure which fairway has a left side fairway problem but I'm sure it's in your head.. Having the key and using it is a wonderful suggestion, much better than the ol wheelbarrow method we used for years, Thanks Special K. Please avoiding reading this aloud as it will drop your brain cell count.. As you were Gordo..

[Yoduh]

OK Gordy, got your message figured out.. Old 18.. I read it 3 times and asked a couple people to try and figure it out and finally just talked to Kevin and figured it out. I think some commas or sumthin would have helped.. Old 18 used to be a pretty decnt hole. I still like it, I still play it 3/4 times a year.
We stilll should Bring the actual club together on this people...

On a side note who thought it would be cool to paintthe top of the baskets OARNGE..

Also night golf guy needs to clean up the strings and glow sitcks he uses for his tourneys, those glow sticks are ugly, litter and had one of them knock my putt out :-{

[Burge]

...who thought it would be cool to paintthe top of the baskets OARNGE..


I concur. I just played this afternoon and, while I will say that it makes it easier to see a couple of the baskets, could whomever do a little better job? I mean like, mask off the chains, dude... and, why not all the baskets? Just the pet-peeve ones? Run out of paint?

[Parks]

Orange tops? WTF?

[Wobbly Bob]

There are or will be two buckets and two sets of teebox flags placed on Downriver hole 14 and 15. These were supplied by Gordy from Four Mound and not removed from People's Park. Where they are installed is just a suggestion for the possible placement for the changes on 14 & 15. Feel free to experiment with these elements.

[friable7]

OK Gordy, got your message figured out.. Old 18.. I read it 3 times and asked a couple people to try and figure it out and finally just talked to Kevin and figured it out. I think some commas or sumthin would have helped.. Old 18 used to be a pretty decnt hole. I still like it, I still play it 3/4 times a year.
We stilll should Bring the actual club together on this people...

On a side note who thought it would be cool to paintthe top of the baskets OARNGE..

Also night golf guy needs to clean up the strings and glow sitcks he uses for his tourneys, those glow sticks are ugly, litter and had one of them knock my putt out :-{

Easy to create an e-mail distribution list of all SDGA members. Can't think of why we ask for e-mail addresses when folks sign up or renew if they weren't intended to be used once in a while to impart important information or get a pulse on what the membership thinks about a certain issue. Of course, if it feels too "democratic" ...

[Wobbly Bob]

The Parks Department has stated that we need to change hole 15 due to erosion on the hillside. Tee box flags and buckets have been taken down there for anyone that wants to move them around and come up with a design that will stop players from throwing over the edge. Our option to redesign is removal of the hole.

We do have an emailer function with the website. When we ask for volunteers to help do the actual move I'll email the club. Maybe 5-7 people will show up.

In the past when I've asked for input about something via email, about 3% of the people on the list respond back to me. How's that for democrazy. :pirate:

[Stimpi]

I still don't get email from the club.
I've requested to be added to the list for about two or three years now and still I don't get anything from the club.
I keep wondering how everyone but me knows what's up with disc golf in Spokane?
I've got two email addresses: steve@stimpiridge.com
and myteefyn@sisna.com
We'll see if this has any effect.
Thanks,
Stimpi




We do have an emailer function with the website. When we ask for volunteers to help do the actual move I'll email the club. Maybe 5-7 people will show up.

In the past when I've asked for input about something via email, about 3% of the people on the list respond back to me. How's that for democrazy. :pirate:

[CityLightsBurn]

Where they are installed is just a suggestion for the possible placement for the changes on 14 & 15. Feel free to experiment with these elements.

Played today, Isint 14 a little short? I like the 15 placement tho.

[Gordy #21004]

A suggestion for the revised tee is marked out about 35' behind the existing tee. The popular thumber shot would still be possible but more guarded. The low shot would be more of a typical RHBH S-curve but NARROW. This change would use the same corridor that #14 uses now but would be at least 1/2 stroke more difficult. Give it a try. Gordy:chug:

[Yoduh]

A suggestion for the revised tee is marked out about 35' behind the existing tee. The popular thumber shot would still be possible but more guarded. The low shot would be more of a typical RHBH S-curve but NARROW. This change would use the same corridor that #14 uses now but would be at least 1/2 stroke more difficult. Give it a try. Gordy:chug:

It seems like the powers that be would present the club with the options they are looking at instead of just deciding what course we are gonna play. I am not talking about the which tee issue you are discussing right now but I am speaking directly to which course we will use. I do not believe that the SDGA reps should get the full say in which course the SDGA players have to play. It is a democracy. Our vote put you in office. When it comes to small things I completely understand why you make decisions with out our knowledge. Once again this is big and once you think you know what design works best it will be up to the powers that be to bring it up to a club vote.. or face the consequences of what club members think and say come election time.

[Wobbly Bob]

I still don't get email from the club.
I've requested to be added to the list for about two or three years now and still I don't get anything from the club.
I keep wondering how everyone but me knows what's up with disc golf in Spokane?
I've got two email addresses: steve@stimpiridge.com
and myteefyn@sisna.com
We'll see if this has any effect.
Thanks,
Stimpi

Steve, your myteefyn address is on the email list and is spelled correctly. I've added your steve address to the list. When I send out email it usually rejects 50 undeliverable address's for various reasons. I don't take the time to open all the rejection emails to find out who isn't getting the messages.

I hope this works, Bob :posting:

[Wobbly Bob]

It seems like the powers that be would present the club with the options they are looking at instead of just deciding what course we are gonna play. I am not talking about the which tee issue you are discussing right now but I am speaking directly to which course we will use. I do not believe that the SDGA reps should get the full say in which course the SDGA players have to play. It is a democracy. Our vote put you in office. When it comes to small things I completely understand why you make decisions with out our knowledge. Once again this is big and once you think you know what design works best it will be up to the powers that be to bring it up to a club vote.. or face the consequences of what club members think and say come election time.

Jeremy, the changes being made at Downriver have nothing to do with what course we will be playing. They are about bringing the course into compliance with what the real Powers That Be (the Parks Dept.) want.

[Yoduh]

Jeremy, the changes being made at Downriver have nothing to do with what course we will be playing. They are about bringing the course into compliance with what the real Powers That Be (the Parks Dept.) want.

How can the changes being made to the course have nothing to do with the course we are playing? :confused::chinscratch::drool:We have another option here that completely adhere's to the park department's requests yet we somehow cannot get a club vote on which change is best and makes the most sense for the long time usage of Downriver?

[Yoduh]

The other option is an option that the club actually voted for. The Board is trying to circumvent the club vote by shoving these changes in..:blush:

[friable7]

The Parks Department has stated that we need to change hole 15 due to erosion on the hillside. Tee box flags and buckets have been taken down there for anyone that wants to move them around and come up with a design that will stop players from throwing over the edge. Our option to redesign is removal of the hole.

We do have an emailer function with the website. When we ask for volunteers to help do the actual move I'll email the club. Maybe 5-7 people will show up.

In the past when I've asked for input about something via email, about 3% of the people on the list respond back to me. How's that for democrazy. :pirate:

Like Stimpi, I have never gotten an e-mail from the club...tnevins7@comcast.net

I am just thinking that if they have a legit e-mail address and they choose not to read a high priority, survey question or hot topic club posting, the Board can at least say that they made a good faith effort to get the information out. This can help make the Board appear more transparent and proactive. Who couldn't use a little positive press?

I always read my e-mail but respond to almost none of it. However, I do read it.

[Wobbly Bob]

Like Stimpi, I have never gotten an e-mail from the club...tnevins7@comcast.net

I am just thinking that if they have a legit e-mail address and they choose not to read a high priority, survey question or hot topic club posting, the Board can at least say that they made a good faith effort to get the information out. This can help make the Board appear more transparent and proactive. Who couldn't use a little positive press?

I always read my e-mail but respond to almost none of it. However, I do read it.

Tim, you were not on the email list. You are now on the email list.:wink2:

[jshrack]

Please also make sure I am on the list.
(jcshrack@gmail.com)
I am a new member and doubt I am there. =)

As for the new holes, please refer to current arrangements for us newbs who don't know the old course. I understand the current arrangement isn't all that new but I for one have NO IDEA where old 18 is.

I like the new 14, harder (more accurate) shot without nearly as many options.
I like the new tee on 15 as long as it's leveled, which I assume will happen?
As for the pin, my groups tend to play the old pin with the new tee.
Little shorter but less scrub to deal with...
Just 2 of my amateur cents, take or leave.

[Wobbly Bob]

Please also make sure I am on the list.
(jcshrack@gmail.com)
I am a new member and doubt I am there. =)

As for the new holes, please refer to current arrangements for us newbs who don't know the old course. I understand the current arrangement isn't all that new but I for one have NO IDEA where old 18 is.

I like the new 14, harder (more accurate) shot without nearly as many options.
I like the new tee on 15 as long as it's leveled, which I assume will happen?
As for the pin, my groups tend to play the old pin with the new tee.
Little shorter but less scrub to deal with...
Just 2 of my amateur cents, take or leave.

Old 18 is New 15. :seeya: You have been added to the email list. :rockon:

[friable7]

Tim, you were not on the email list. You are now on the email list.:wink2:

Thanks, Bob. Got the first one about night golf! Tim

[jshrack]

got my first email, thx bob

Anyway, I have been playing DR quite a bit lately and trying to show people the new tees and pins.
Most don't wanna hear about it, likely the same people who still play HB #5 from the top of the road.
Most people don't even notice the new layouts... Getting signs on the course with this info will really help you get more input. Maybe even put a sign out there and tell people that helpful input gets you a entry into a drawing for a new disc or something? I personally had to ask a few times to get this website. (im dense)

From the feedback I do get:
Not many people like the idea of moving 14's tee back unless there is some major trimming done.
I personally think that moving the tee left 5m and turning it 90 degrees clockwise while keeping the trees mando would be fun. Maybe too much of a RHBH preference shot... but still fun.

Either way, not a big fan of the new tee at 14.:whistler:

Have other options been discussed?

[Gordy #21004]

We won't be allowed to cut trees or trim. Over time 'natural' thinning occurs. It may be possible to have the City Arborist come through and clean it up; after all, some thinning would be good for the overall health of the trees. In the meantime the alt for #14 would play a lot tougher for most people....losing an easy deuce is hard to bear. A less challenging option would be to set the new tee less deep.

[jshrack]

I get your point and even read the sarcasm through the text. :wink2:
I guess I will get used to playing it as marked with the tees and buckets.

Why don't we just make the switch?
It seems the decision has been made...
Another work party like today, maybe a few more hands.
We can get it all done in... 6 hours?

[Dixon011001]

Hey Bob. I've never recieved an email from the club. but I would be interested in getting them. My email is dixon011001@yahoo.com.
Thank you.

[Gordy #21004]

I get your point and even read the sarcasm through the text. :wink2:
I guess I will get used to playing it as marked with the tees and buckets.

Why don't we just make the switch?
It seems the decision has been made...
Another work party like today, maybe a few more hands.
We can get it all done in... 6 hours?

The Board will pull the trigger on this one. I feel we need to critique the work just performed at HB. The 'sleeper' should be buried so the weight of the gravel makes it act like a 'deadman'. The pads should be anchored more to the rear and left to 'float' in the front. The 2x6 in the front should be on the flat so the pad's front edge floats over it easily and is always 100% supported. There are many theories on effective pad installation and some can be fairly elaborate and expensive. Our approach on Monday was a little shy of 'middle of the road'. All the helpers were busting a nut in the 96F heat and provided a foundation that will need only a minor tune up. Were there enough spikes? I'd be happy to work with Jeff, Tim ,Joe, Other Joe and Justin any time. Thanks, Gordy.:cheers:

[Sky Pilot]

Gordy,

You should take a look at the pads again. Justin and I finished up yesterday, packing down #1's gravel with a heavy water roller. We also pinned #5 and plan to pack #5's pad later.
Eric said it was, "A good job," , as many others have as well.

I think any "critique" should take in to account what was allowed to be there for 6 months.

Sky Pilot
Gravel Hauler
:angel:

[Yoduh]

Number 5 looked awesome!! Thanks to all who helped out, wish I could have been in town to help instead of 90 degree heat with 90% humidity in Chicago at worlds.. what a melting pot!:explode:

[Sky Pilot]

Number 5 looked awesome!! Thanks to all who helped out, wish I could have been in town to help instead of 90 degree heat with 90% humidity in Chicago at worlds.. what a melting pot!:explode:

What did you think of #1?

Sky

[Yoduh]

What did you think of #1?

Sky

Number 1 looked good but it seems short.. Maybe it was just me.. It is way better than it was and I parked it so it must be fine:biggrin2:

[Sky Pilot]

Number 1 looked good but it seems short.. Maybe it was just me.. It is way better than it was and I parked it so it must be fine:biggrin2:

It's the same length.

[Sky Pilot]

It's the same length.

I heard Feldberg took second place at Worlds - is that true?

[Parks]

I heard Feldberg took second place at Worlds - is that true?

Wrong topic?

[Yoduh]

DING DING DING Wrong topic.. is the correct answer.. Look up the FIGJAM website... Don't you get mass emails from the I heart Feldburg website:dancing::biggrin2: Eric McCabe won by a landslide.. I have 3 proto Nuke Plusses that Disccraft will never make again if anyone is interested with EMAC's Signature..

[Burge]

I have 3 proto Nuke Plusses that Disccraft will never make again if anyone is interested with EMAC's Signature..

Que`? :eek: Por cuanto?:chinscratch:

[Gordy #21004]

Come to Downriver Sat. morning at 10:00 am to help with new tee-pad installations and some new pin placements. General cleaning up is also on the menu. Bring gloves, shovels, rakes, buckets, wheelbarrows and hole diggers. We'll most likely need a big straight breaker-bar. Kevin is bringing donuts and drinking water. Any other food or goodies will be welcome. If anyone has any Quick-crete we can use please let us know other wise we'll go pick some up. See You There. Gordy. PS, Advance recon will be on site by 9:30.:wink2:

[SeanT00]

Is there going to be any change to hole 8? I had heard about this in a previous post. A friend and I were at Downriver tonight and played a 'new' hole 8 that I think would work quite well. It would involve moving the teepad almost directly below where it is at now down to just above the fallen tree on the lower hill side and playing not towards the river, but towards the basket for current hole #6. This would prevent crossover between 7 and 8 while stopping many of the erosion issues. I would be willing to meet up with a club member at the course to walk this out.

[psychodwarf]

i have been doing alot of work on DR and i am pulling up and moving ALL the tee signs for the baskets and tee boxes that have been moved so far we have moved #2 3 14 15 tee pads i have the sign posts for 14 15 just need concrete for them ..i am trying to get all of this done before it snows but with only 2 or 3 ppl helping its taking me a long time ..srry.. also basket 2 WILL have a lake (no water) on the side of it and have a drop zone and a out of bounds area the drop zone will over by the riverside of the road and the hill going down to 3`s new pad will be the out-of-bounds area.. i hope to have all the changes done by next year (i hope ) if you dont like what i have done PLEASE tell me ANY INPUT IS BETTER THEN NONE.

[Sean Johnson]

i have been doing alot of work on DR and i am pulling up and moving ALL the tee signs for the baskets and tee boxes that have been moved so far we have moved #2 3 14 15 tee pads i have the sign posts for 14 15 just need concrete for them ..i am trying to get all of this done before it snows but with only 2 or 3 ppl helping its taking me a long time ..srry.. also basket 2 WILLhave a lake (no water) on the side of it and have a drop zone and a out of bounds area the drop zone will over by the riverside of the road and the hill going down to 3`s new pad wil the out-of-bounds area.. i hope to have all the changes done by next year (i hope ) if you dont like what i have done PLEASE tell me ANY INPUT IS BETTER THEN NONE.

Next time you plan on doing some work, hit me up. I'm always available and always looking to improve our courses. 509-464-9654

[psychodwarf]

Next time you plan on doing some work, hit me up. I'm always available and always looking to improve our courses. 509-464-9654

called no answer .left message ..no answer... HMMM...I am down there working more times then i care to recall... like working on the course if you see me or my truck there most likely working on the course ...i will need some help working on the lake I am creating i would like to get ALL THE changes done BEFORE the end of the year ..but who knows ...:bricks:

[Burge]

...i will need some help working on the lake I am creating

QUE?:chinscratch: Lake? What lake? With no water? :chinscratch:Could you provide a few more details?

[psychodwarf]

que?:chinscratch: Lake? What lake? With no water? :chinscratch:could you provide a few more details?

if i did then you would know my madness ....mahahahahaha

[Chainbanger44]

No offense,the lake sounds kinda "chesey" to me. I think the left side of the dead tree would be a great mando.

[psychodwarf]

No offense,the lake sounds kinda "chesey" to me. I think the left side of the dead tree would be a great mando.

the LAKE we have a mando OR two the idea of the "LAKE" is to help save the little trees BEHIND the dead tree from being RUN over plus the left side of the road will be out of bounds .. besides when i am done with it then you can say its "cheesy" or not ... fair enough ?:whistler:

[Sean Johnson]

called no answer .left message ..no answer... HMMM...I am down there working more times then i care to recall... like working on the course if you see me or my truck there most likely working on the course ...i will need some help working on the lake I am creating i would like to get ALL THE changes done BEFORE the end of the year ..but who knows ...:bricks:

No voicemail here.....HMMMM....try again next time? Or you can message me here, I check it every day.

[Chainbanger44]

the LAKE we have a mando OR two the idea of the "LAKE" is to help save the little trees BEHIND the dead tree from being RUN over plus the left side of the road will be out of bounds .. besides when i am done with it then you can say its "cheesy" or not ... fair enough ?:whistler:







Very fair. I'm for saving all trees and keeping things natural, but I don't believe bringing in a pile of rocks and painting them blue is very natural. It just depends on the hole placement and what you deem as the fairway.

[Parks]

Um, lake on 2? How exactly do you plan to mark it? And who gave the ok on this?

I think OB on this hole will be a necessity due to the proximity to both the edge of the bank and hole 17, but I don't think a lake would do a good job of protecting those saplings near the dead tree.

[Yoduh]

Joe told me that Bob gave him the ok to do it.

[Yoduh]

Bob does make the decisions doesn't he?

[psychodwarf]

well since i have gotten SO much NEGETIVE response about the " lake " i guess bob and i will go and find something else to create to help the park.. is that ok now parks. any body else got anything else to say about "who said i could do this or that " i am getting REAL tried of being yelled at AFTER i do something yet WHEN i am doing something everyone says "good job" "nice going " and stuff ..

[Parks]

well since i have gotten SO much NEGETIVE response about the " lake " i guess bob and i will go and find something else to create to help the park.. is that ok now parks. any body else got anything else to say about "who said i could do this or that " i am getting REAL tried of being yelled at AFTER i do something yet WHEN i am doing something everyone says "good job" "nice going " and stuff ..

I'm not trying to be negative and I wasn't yelling at you, I'm just wondering how you planned on going about it.

And all course changes, however minor, need to go through the club so I was just making sure that it wasn't just rogue "course maintenance." Since this was the first I'd heard of it, I thought I'd ask.

I noticed a blue line of paint out there, was that the final plan?

[psychodwarf]

I'm not trying to be negative and I wasn't yelling at you, I'm just wondering how you planned on going about it.

And all course changes, however minor, need to go through the club so I was just making sure that it wasn't just rogue "course maintenance." Since this was the first I'd heard of it, I thought I'd ask.

I noticed a blue line of paint out there, was that the final plan?

no that was just a lay out bob and i was working on AND i did not SAY it was you yelling at me .. and the only "course maintenance" i do WITHOUT the clubs say so is my "garbage runs" where i drive thru and change the garbage can bags ..all the negative response i am getting is from "why bother WE dont like it " I do not think that i am doing anything wrong yet that is how i am being made to feel like .. i got a call from someone NOT happy i had my truck and equipment IN the park AND that i had ran over a tree( not on puprose)sometimes i feel like my time is better spent sitting at home then helping out at the golf course .:pullhair:

[Parks]

No worries. Picking up trash is one of the best things anyone can do for our courses.

Back to my original question, how would the lake be marked on the hole?

[Yoduh]

To the untrained eye we must seem like a bunch of calm cool frisbee throwing hippies..

[Gordy #21004]

Um, lake on 2? How exactly do you plan to mark it? And who gave the ok on this?

I think OB on this hole will be a necessity due to the proximity to both the edge of the bank and hole 17, but I don't think a lake would do a good job of protecting those saplings near the dead tree.

The discussion of an out-of-bounds came up on the day we were installing the new tee and the new pin for #2. The saplings in question are in the fairway a little short of the green (30 to 40') and lie slightly to the right of the line-of-play. They are the only young trees in this area and there are very few of them. Our idea was to contain them in their own little OB area. We thought that if you let players take a free drop or something beside or in front of the trees then they would more likely be left unmolested. (for competitive play a penalty would be assessed if you landed in the OB) Otherwise the trees will soon be victims. We thought that a permanent in-ground line ( something you wouldn't trip over) would be best. A set- in line of bricks came to mind; paint them blue and call it the'Lake' (optional). We thought it best to have this element in place before moving the basket to the new placement....... We also discussed either a mando or an OB to protect the 17th green. I personally think an OB protecting the 17th green would be a better solution than a mando. (there will be a pair of mandos installed for the new arrangement at # 15 anyway) The notion that #2 could be made even tougher by installing an OB line on the inland side of the park path that wraps up the left side of the fairway and green is something we are also considering. ... All in all the shrinking margins of the park has made this task of compliance challenging. We are taking our time, using mostly recycled resources, and being as deliberative as humanly possible. Thanks for being patient with us while we finish this phase of the changes. Gordy.:headbang:

[Parks]

The discussion of an out-of-bounds came up on the day we were installing the new tee and the new pin for #2. The saplings in question are in the fairway a little short of the green (30 to 40') and lie slightly to the right of the line-of-play. They are the only young trees in this area and there are very few of them. Our idea was to contain them in their own little OB area. We thought that if you let players take a free drop or something beside or in front of the trees then they would more likely be left unmolested. (for competitive play a penalty would be assessed if you landed in the OB) Otherwise the trees will soon be victims. We thought that a permanent in-ground line ( something you wouldn't trip over) would be best. A set- in line of bricks came to mind; paint them blue and call it the'Lake' (optional).

The only problem with this is that, well, it wouldn't protect the saplings. To illustrate my point, over the bank on holes 2 and 15 are OB and yet the bank has still become highly eroded. Competitive players may respect an OB, Lake, or Mando, but the majority of players at DR will not.

That being said, I think roping it off or painting a line to mark the lake for tournament play is a great idea.


We also discussed either a mando or an OB to protect the 17th green. I personally think an OB protecting the 17th green would be a better solution than a mando.

I think an OB here would be both a good idea and easy to do. There are some big rocks that are out of the rock pile proper and in the fairways for #2 and #17. Just moving these free rocks into a line from the tip of the rock pile to the tree that is northwest of 17's basket. This will create an OB line that will require little maintenance and is quite visible, distinct, and obvious. Roping off the rock pile and calling it OB for tournaments would also make sure there was no question as to what is in or out of bounds.

I think for tournaments, using this OB AND a mando left is the best option because it will keep righties from throwing hyzers over 17's green.


(there will be a pair of mandos installed for the new arrangement at # 15 anyway)

I've seen the ribbons for the suggested mandos on 15, and they are entirely unnecessary. There is a "fun route" where a righty can throw a huge anhyzer down the road, but no one would seriously consider throwing it in a tournament. And in a casual round, a mando would not stop someone from throwing this route.

The notion that #2 could be made even tougher by installing an OB line on the inland side of the park path that wraps up the left side of the fairway and green is something we are also considering.

I think making anything left of the main path OB on this hole is a good idea both playability-wise and erosion-wise. Depending on the placement of the pin, making the hole path OB as well may be a good idea as well. I normally dislike artificial OB, but it is necessary on this hole for several reasons. We just have to accept that it will not be followed by the majority of casual players.

[jshrack]

I am concerned about all the changes which entail marking O.B. and instituting mando's which aren't obvious to the average players.
If you arrange the course in this way it will work great for the 2-4 tourneys a year but it will be a disaster for the other 350+ days of the year where casual players don't care. :(

We should be developing the course to make it playable...
If I am putting on 17 and a random intoxicated douche is slingin' a side-arm on 2... no ribbon is gonna save me; Nor is a pile of rocks or a line gonna save the small trees.
I still think we can DESIGN the holes to keep these issues OUT of PLAY!
Eric seems to be the person we put in charge of this, I believe he can be trusted to develop something that works.

I am sorry if this insults anybody, it is not meant to; just my 2 cents.
I think we have amazing possibilities in place if we decide to work as a team.

[Parks]

Unless you have a massive property to work with or some amazingly thick tree barriers in between every single hole, there will always be some risk of getting hit by the disc. Its the same with ball golf, baseball, and any other sport.

The idea is to minimize the risk and work with what we have. Hole 2 and 17 are wide open areas, and so there is not much you can do with natural barriers. Right now, there is good visibility between the two holes and that is one of the best things for safety. A blind shot would have a much greater risk of getting hit.

Drunken douche can find a way to hit you all over Downriver. From 1's tee he can hit you on 11 and 17, drunken douche can hit you on 18 from 17, on 16 from 12, on 15 from 14, etc.

Ideally, I'd like to plant a string of trees that catch discs all along the rock pile between the two holes, but I don't think its a realistic solution. The only thing we can do without a full redesign to improve safety from drunken douche would be to nerf 2 and 17 to the point where they are no longer fun to play. And let drunken douche know that he should wait if there is a risk of hitting someone that is putting, and that he needs to yell fore if he does throw a shot that may go near someone.

[Yoduh]

These are the reasons why I have been wanting a club meeting and the reason I am a proponent of a complete redesign of my beloved Downriver which I have been playing since there was paint on the trees. Times change, Courses Change, adapt or fall by the wayside..

[SeanT00]

I like the idea of changing the course and doing as much as possible to keep rogue throws from hitting others. The serious disc'ers out there will probably follow the mandos and OBs, but I think Parks is right - most people will not. I appreciate the work the club and players have done for the course.

That being said, I saw a blue line painted about 30 feet in front of and to the right of Hole #1's tee. Is this a proposed throw spot? The Hole 1/11 debacle is probably the most dangerous spot on the course currently, and throwing from this spot would probably help a bit, although it is quite easy.

Also, changes to Hole 8? Anything? I see the pad is not up the hill anymore.

[Burge]

I see the pad is not up the hill anymore.

The pad was actually stolen a few weeks ago.

[jshrack]

I agree with you, errant throws happen and need to be watched for.
It's part of the game... :slapface:

I don't agree with the course being set up so that pins are so close that a semi-decent shot would have a good chance of hitting someone. A point I didn't make very well.

If we plan on planting barrier trees... I LOVE the idea. Lets do it. I'll help.
If we need to put in another type of barrier, check out the wackiness at 'Mineral Springs' (North Park) in Seattle... anything is possible but our design can definitely improve safety.

All said, I would love a re-design of Downriver. I think that property has amazing possibilities that are not being used to potential. And with the new set-up at Highbridge... we need a course Pro's enjoy playing and amateurs can better use to improve their game.

[Parks]

All said, I would love a re-design of Downriver. I think that property has amazing possibilities that are not being used to potential.

Not going to happen at this point. The last two years of club meetings all had stuff in them about DR redesigns and nothing came out of it that would make it worth doing.

Fixing a few holes to remove safety and erosion issues and leaving the rest alone really is the best option for DR. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And with the new set-up at Highbridge... we need a course Pro's enjoy playing and amateurs can better use to improve their game.

This is the plan for Camp Sekani which the Parks Dept. will let us do after we get set up in People's Park, or hopefully they'll let us do it if it is clear that the PP bureaucratic red tape is endless. I wanted to do a truly challenging course with People's Park, but it just wasn't feasible with the land.

Right now, unfortunately, the best bet to play a course like this is over an hour away at Farragut.

[Timber]

PS Why not the CE RE design? TW

I think the C Re design did not work within the Parks Dept restrictions (staying away from bank, no cutting of trees). There might have been other ways to do it; I was personally really hoping for a full redesign but that train has left the station.

[Burge]

In an effort to move forward with the situation as it stands and offer a suggestion...

I think there could be a better solution for the need to change #8 and instead, add a new challenging hole. Rather than keep the old teepad at the top of the hill, bring the entire hole down to ground level and play the unused old #8 fairway backwards. If #7's teepad does get moved back and to the left (which I assume would be on the road), a teepad for #8 could be placed just behind the two large pines at the bottom of the hill, forcing a tight drive back up the old fairway and keeping sticky-fingered hyzers from bombing on #7's tee. The pin for this new hole would then be placed in the small clearing to the east of #6's pin, but closer to the bottom of the hill and protected from the intended approach by the large shrubs bordering the open area. this would create a medium-length blind dog-leg to the left that would present a challenging deuce for a Pro, but would be a good challenge to keep par for Am/Rec players. There is plenty of heavy protection around #6's pin to ward off upshots with too much gas and there are a few deadfall logs in the clearing that could be drug out and used to demarcate a safe trail--both from #6 pin to #7 tee and from (this hypothetical) #8 pin to #9 tee. If there is no objection to doing so, this proposed hole could be laid out with surveyor's tape and a bucket target. Hmm?:chinscratch:

[Sean Johnson]

In an effort to move forward with the situation as it stands and offer a suggestion...

I think there could be a better solution for the need to change of #8 and instead, add a new challenging hole. Rather than keep the old teepad at the top of the hill, bring the entire hole down to ground level and play the unused old #8 fairway backwards. If #7's teepad does get moved back and to the left (which I assume would be on the road), a teepad for #8 could be placed just behind the two large pines at the bottom of the hill, forcing a tight drive back up the old fairway and keeping sticky-fingered hyzers from bombing on #7's tee. The pin for this new hole would then be placed in the small clearing to the east of #6's pin, but closer to the bottom of the hill and protected from the intended approach by the large shrubs bordering the open area. this would create a medium-length blind dog-leg to the left that would present a challenging deuce for a Pro, but would be a good challenge to keep par for Am/Rec players. There is plenty of heavy protection around #6's pin to ward off upshots with too much gas and there are a few deadfall logs in the clearing that could be drug out and used to demarcate a safe trail--both from #6 pin to #7 tee and from (this hypothetical) #8 pin to #9 tee. If there is no objection to doing so, this proposed hole could be laid out with surveyor's tape and a bucket target. Hmm?:chinscratch:

Great idea. I don't think many people will be too upset at not having to climb up the hill to get to the tee. Also, I think the course needs another hyzer hole to balance things out a bit. There are several holes that favor anhyzer/forehand shots (3,4,11,13 new 15, and 16), many holes that play straight or end straight after a S-curve (1,2,5,7,9,10,12,17, and 18) but how many holes on the courses finish left or favor a hyzer line? Sure hyzers can be thrown on many of the holes I mentioned, but 6 is the only hole that seems like a hyzer is the primary route.

[Parks]

In an effort to move forward with the situation as it stands and offer a suggestion...

I think there could be a better solution for the need to change #8 and instead, add a new challenging hole. Rather than keep the old teepad at the top of the hill, bring the entire hole down to ground level and play the unused old #8 fairway backwards. If #7's teepad does get moved back and to the left (which I assume would be on the road), a teepad for #8 could be placed just behind the two large pines at the bottom of the hill, forcing a tight drive back up the old fairway and keeping sticky-fingered hyzers from bombing on #7's tee. The pin for this new hole would then be placed in the small clearing to the east of #6's pin, but closer to the bottom of the hill and protected from the intended approach by the large shrubs bordering the open area. this would create a medium-length blind dog-leg to the left that would present a challenging deuce for a Pro, but would be a good challenge to keep par for Am/Rec players. There is plenty of heavy protection around #6's pin to ward off upshots with too much gas and there are a few deadfall logs in the clearing that could be drug out and used to demarcate a safe trail--both from #6 pin to #7 tee and from (this hypothetical) #8 pin to #9 tee. If there is no objection to doing so, this proposed hole could be laid out with surveyor's tape and a bucket target. Hmm?:chinscratch:

This or something similar has been kicked around a lot. I think C-Re's design had a variation on this that was pretty cool.

It wouldn't be so bad if it wouldn't be cutting out the only true downhill shot on the course.

Great idea. I don't think many people will be too upset at not having to climb up the hill to get to the tee.

That walk up the hill is worth it for a solid downhill throw.

I know there's a small number of people that don't like losing discs on 7 and don't like walking up the hill on 8 so they just skip that little turn and go straight to 9. Its always an option in casual play, just be courteous and don't cut in front of a faster group.

[Burge]

This or something similar has been kicked around a lot. I think C-Re's design had a variation on this that was pretty cool.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wouldn't be cutting out the only true downhill shot on the course.
That walk up the hill is worth it for a solid downhill throw.


Well, (and I'm sorry to say, Sean-J) I think the walk up the hill, or most of it, would still be necessary so that players finishing #7 wouldn't walk straight back down the fairway to the proposed #8 tee. Also, I agree with Tom that old #6 was the better downhill shot...:chinscratch:Here's another thought though...

I've also mulled about this possibility: keep the tee at the top of the hill, but put the pin in the clearing I'm talking about (E. of #6). Now, THAT would be a fun downhill shot.:jumpspin: That way, it could be a good run at par for a Pro, but could represent a daunting hole for the average player, thereby bringing back a little more of the 'tough' rep that DR seems to have lost since the change from the old "21";). For this option, the pin could be placed more near the center of the clearing, giving the outside chance at a miracle hyzer sky-bomb ace.:rockon: Howz 'bout dem apples?:D

[Sean Johnson]

The walk up the hill never bothered me, and I think that we are losing one of the best holes on the course, though I've never had much luck with the current placement. Regardless, challenge is what makes a good hole. I'd like to see the elevation stay, especially since I see no other safe way to 8's teepad (wherever it ends up). Personally, I think that we should keep the teepad and play down the hill just like you said, and I hope that the approach is still a healthy distance from the landing area. Shot placement would become the name of the game, as I could see skips turning a good shot bad. This way, we preserve the fun and challenge of an elevation shot without the risk of lost discs or erosion.

[Parks]

Make the course safe and challenging to play for all levels.

I agree with that.

I also think old #6 was a better downhill throw, risk reward, than old #10, new #8

I disagree with this. Old 6 was a very safe overhand shot, low hyzer for lefty or righty, a straight floaty putter/mid shot, or a mid/driver skip up to the basket. All these shots were very safe, and you would have to overpower it a fair amount to end up in the river. And 99% of the time if you messed up you had a wide open approach and an easy par.

Current 10, old 8, is much more of a finesse shot. For a righty, you want to throw a straight and low shot with a mid, and if you don't get the right touch on it you can accidentally turn over this shot too much and end in the river. For a lefty, its a straight shot or a slight hyzer, either of which can fade or skip into the river if you don't execute it well. The risk/reward is way more intense on this hole.

Well, (and I'm sorry to say, Sean-J) I think the walk up the hill, or most of it, would still be necessary so that players finishing #7 wouldn't walk straight back down the fairway to the proposed #8 tee. Also, I agree with Tom that old #6 was the better downhill shot...:chinscratch:Here's another thought though...

I've also mulled about this possibility: keep the tee at the top of the hill, but put the pin in the clearing I'm talking about (E. of #6). Now, THAT would be a fun downhill shot.:jumpspin: That way, it could be a good run at par for a Pro, but could represent a daunting hole for the average player, thereby bringing back a little more of the 'tough' rep that DR seems to have lost since the change from the old "21";). For this option, the pin could be placed more near the center of the clearing, giving the outside chance at a miracle hyzer sky-bomb ace.:rockon: Howz 'bout dem apples?:D

The hole will actually be changed somewhat similar to this to prevent the safety issues on hole 7 and 8. The tee will be the same, and the pin will be place in the trees in between old 8's fairway and current 7's teepad in the clearing where there is an obvious green. There will be a safe righty hyzer or sharp lefty turn, or you can play it straight and low to current 7's teepad area. These are usually solid par shots. The best chance at a deuce is a shot that plays left of the path going down the hill and brings the trees over there into play. This is a very risk/reward oriented shot, as the deuce run can easily leave you with a 4, and the safe shots are almost always pars. Hole 7's teepad will be moved behind the current pin location for 8 to make this turn very safe and fast moving for tournament play.

[Yoduh]

Hole 10 was way better than 6. Much more precision required to throw the shot and more risk reward when choosing to go for it or lay up.
Not sure the proposed hole is anywhere close to how good original 10 is but I just need to face the fact that Downrinver is becoming watered down but somehow people think we are keeping the same course..:yawn:

[Parks]

Not sure the proposed hole is anywhere close to how good original 10 is but I just need to face the fact that Downrinver is becoming watered down but somehow people think we are keeping the same course..:yawn:

No one is saying that it is the same course. Its just one that is nearly free of erosion issues and less safety concerns while maintaining most of the holes and the same layout.

I also disagree with it being watered down since some holes are being made easier and some are being made harder.

[Burge]

For me, I guess the values between old 6 and 10 are debatable, but only from my own personal preferences. For me, both holes were always a forehand skip (RH), barring ground conditions. 6 was shorter with a sharper angle of attack, giving the chance at a skip ace (never got one, hit the basket a few times), but always with a higher risk of sailing past the basket and over the bank for a tough putt back, the loss of a disc, or an OB in tournament play. 10 provided a softer angle of contact to the ground, a more even surface and a greater distance to the basket allowing the disc to scoot along the road instead of pop up, making it a better chance at a skip deuce with a safer run at par if the drive came up short. Shooting for a deuce on 10 and missing the mark usually meant par, but shooting for an ace on 6 and missing could also wind up par. That would seem like a greater risk:reward ratio to me and, overall, I had more discs over the edge on 6 than on 10, but I had more deuces on 6 than 10.

Still, the reality is, 6 is gone and it's not coming back and the former 10, now 8, has to change.

Parks is right that the downhill shot should be preserved, but Yoduh is also right that the officially proposed pin placement would soften the hole just for the sake of keeping the elevated shot. I think pushing the pin back and farther to the left not only offers a more challenging hole in both distance and approach, but also directs play up the old #8 fairway and not up the soon to be old #7 tee, resulting in less chance of play crossing between 7 and 8, providing the most safety while still providing a challenging hole.

That's my nickel's worth.;)

[Parks]

For me, I guess the values between old 6 and 10 are debatable, but only from my own personal preferences. For me, both holes were always a forehand skip (RH), barring ground conditions. 6 was shorter with a sharper angle of attack, giving the chance at a skip ace (never got one, hit the basket a few times), but always with a higher risk of sailing past the basket and over the bank for a tough putt back, the loss of a disc, or an OB in tournament play. 10 provided a softer angle of contact to the ground, a more even surface and a greater distance to the basket allowing the disc to scoot along the road instead of pop up, making it a better chance at a skip deuce with a safer run at par if the drive came up short. Shooting for a deuce on 10 and missing the mark usually meant par, but shooting for an ace on 6 and missing could also wind up par. That would seem like a greater risk:reward ratio to me and, overall, I had more discs over the edge on 6 than on 10, but I had more deuces on 6 than 10.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about running for aces on 6 which is a great way to throw into the river and take a bogey. That risk/reward is more risk than reward in tournament play. Most of the time, running for an ace means you either need an ace (last hole of play, or you're so far out of the cash in the last round that you need to hit the ace pot to take something home) or you are accepting an unnecessary risk.

There are certainly holes where the ace run has a low risk and a high reward. RHFH shots on both holes 3 at DR and 17 at HB in the right position are good examples because you don't lose your chance at birdie or par if you mess up your shot. Hole 6 at DR was not like this.

[jshrack]

I also disagree with it being watered down since some holes are being made easier and some are being made harder.

I think the new changes in the last month DEFINITELY water down the course.

2 is much easier simply because of the distance and angle.
3 is outrageously easier, shorter with less risk and more reward.
15 seems easier to me... 2's and 3's galore... no real risk shot.

14 is the only hole that may have gotten tougher. Sadly, I would contend that it is a contrived righty thumber hole now... which we already have all over the course.

Hell, every hole that got changed is an easier righty thumber now...


It's quite possible that my perception is skewed... I am not the most experienced player.
I just wanna get better scores by improving my game, not by playing an easier course. :yawn:

[Parks]

I think the new changes in the last month DEFINITELY water down the course.

2 is much easier simply because of the distance and angle.
3 is outrageously easier, shorter with less risk and more reward.
15 seems easier to me... 2's and 3's galore... no real risk shot.

14 is the only hole that may have gotten tougher. Sadly, I would contend that it is a contrived righty thumber hole now... which we already have all over the course.

Hell, every hole that got changed is an easier righty thumber now...


It's quite possible that my perception is skewed... I am not the most experienced player.
I just wanna get better scores by improving my game, not by playing an easier course. :yawn:

I agree with you on all those.

Hole 2 was never difficult since it was wide open, it was basically just a question of whether you could throw 400+ feet or not. So I don't think there's any real loss there. The teepad isn't where its supposed to be, but that wouldn't change the difficulty of the hole.

Hole 3 will be tougher, and more of an uphill shot (which we need at DR) once the pin is moved up the hill. It will be out of thumber range for anyone without a beastly arm, and be a more challenging and less lucky green.

Hole 14 is rather silly right now, but that's because the pin isn't where it was supposed to be (25 feet to the right, a little deeper). It should be a much better all around shot.

Hole 15 is going to use 2's old teepad, which makes it longer and harder, and also opens up some sneakier RHBH routes to the right of the close tree.

Hole 7 will probably have about the same scoring average, but it will be a little trickier to play it safe.

Hole 8 will be almost half a stroke harder because the tee will be pushed back and to the left quite a bit, which is nice because that will make it a true par 4 instead of the current par 3.5. If you look at the lines through the fairway from this angle, they are also less lucky.

So you've seen the changes that have watered down the course a little, but you haven't seen the changes that will counter those with harder holes yet. Its just that 2, 3, and 15 were the worst offenders for erosion issues so they were done first.

[jshrack]

I really appreciate you passing on this info.

[Sean Johnson]

I agree with you on all those.

Hole 2 was never difficult since it was wide open, it was basically just a question of whether you could throw 400+ feet or not. So I don't think there's any real loss there. The teepad isn't where its supposed to be, but that wouldn't change the difficulty of the hole.

Hole 3 will be tougher, and more of an uphill shot (which we need at DR) once the pin is moved up the hill. It will be out of thumber range for anyone without a beastly arm, and be a more challenging and less lucky green.

Hole 14 is rather silly right now, but that's because the pin isn't where it was supposed to be (25 feet to the right, a little deeper). It should be a much better all around shot.

Hole 15 is going to use 2's old teepad, which makes it longer and harder, and also opens up some sneakier RHBH routes to the right of the close tree.

Hole 7 will probably have about the same scoring average, but it will be a little trickier to play it safe.

Hole 8 will be almost half a stroke harder because the tee will be pushed back and to the left quite a bit, which is nice because that will make it a true par 4 instead of the current par 3.5. If you look at the lines through the fairway from this angle, they are also less lucky.

So you've seen the changes that have watered down the course a little, but you haven't seen the changes that will counter those with harder holes yet. Its just that 2, 3, and 15 were the worst offenders for erosion issues so they were done first.

So hole 14's pin is in the wrong placement? I'm wondering how we managed to misplace 14's pin and 2's teepad when were were at a SDGA work party with two board members present. Or do you mean old 14?

[Burge]

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about running for aces on 6 which is a great way to throw into the river and take a bogey. That risk/reward is more risk than reward in tournament play. Most of the time, running for an ace means you either need an ace (last hole of play, or you're so far out of the cash in the last round that you need to hit the ace pot to take something home) or you are accepting an unnecessary risk.

There are certainly holes where the ace run has a low risk and a high reward. RHFH shots on both holes 3 at DR and 17 at HB in the right position are good examples because you don't lose your chance at birdie or par if you mess up your shot. Hole 6 at DR was not like this.

Bear in mind that I was framing my comparison within the context of my own personal preference and that I said my usual choice of strategy on either hole was a skip shot. Driving straight at the chains is never a good idea, would be a stupid and brash maneuver in tournament play, and would have been laughable on the old 6. Shooting at the ground 20' in front of the basket is what I found worked best for me in most situations on that hole. It was a way to play the hole aggressively and hedge my bets at the same time.

In retrospect, I guess it is an apple to an orange: 6 you could bite right into, but 10 you had to peel.:biggrin2:

[Burge]

Hole 2 was never difficult since it was wide open, it was basically just a question of whether you could throw 400+ feet or not. So I don't think there's any real loss there. The teepad isn't where its supposed to be, but that wouldn't change the difficulty of the hole.

Once the pin is moved to the new location, the distance will be roughly the same and there is a bit more guarding the basket so I see this hole as slightly more challenging, although it's still the same shot.

Hole 3 will be tougher, and more of an uphill shot (which we need at DR) once the pin is moved up the hill. It will be out of thumber range for anyone without a beastly arm, and be a more challenging and less lucky green.

I agree. I miss old 12.:(

Hole 14 is rather silly right now, but that's because the pin isn't where it was supposed to be (25 feet to the right, a little deeper). It should be a much better all around shot.

Don't you mean 15?

Hole 15 is going to use 2's old teepad, which makes it longer and harder, and also opens up some sneakier RHBH routes to the right of the close tree.

Don't you mean 12? I guess it is old 15.

Hole 7 will probably have about the same scoring average, but it will be a little trickier to play it safe.

Hole 8 will be almost half a stroke harder because the tee will be pushed back and to the left quite a bit, which is nice because that will make it a true par 4 instead of the current par 3.5. If you look at the lines through the fairway from this angle, they are also less lucky.

I think you've juxtaposed the numbers of the holes here, because otherwise, you're losing me...

So, just like Sean asked (and I'm assuming this to be the case because putting 14's pin 25' to the right would place it deep in the schule) 15 is in the wrong place?:chinscratch: I would think the temporary target in the same spot for weeks prior and Gordy's confidence in placement would not indicate such a discrepancy and, if true, is most disheartening since Sean J. and I are the ones that went through the effort to put the sucker in the ground.

Clarity?

[Parks]

So hole 14's pin is in the wrong placement? I'm wondering how we managed to misplace 14's pin and 2's teepad when were were at a SDGA work party with two board members present.

I meant current 14.

[Parks]

Bear in mind that I was framing my comparison within the context of my own personal preference and that I said my usual choice of strategy on either hole was a skip shot.

Risk/reward is always personal preference. You measure the risk vs. the reward for a particular shot and decide whether to throw it or not. It doesn't, of course, exempt you from taking riskier shots that you are more familiar with over safer shots.

Driving straight at the chains is never a good idea, would be a stupid and brash maneuver in tournament play, and would have been laughable on the old 6. Shooting at the ground 20' in front of the basket is what I found worked best for me in most situations on that hole. It was a way to play the hole aggressively and hedge my bets at the same time.

There are plenty of non-risky skip shots on old six, 20 feet short is playing it pretty close and approaching where I would try to skip an ace run. If you throw long at all you would be looking at a tough put over the edge.

[Parks]

Don't you mean 15?

Nope, 15 is fine. Its the best that could be done without having a significant amount of discs going over the edge. I meant 14.


Don't you mean 12? I guess it is old 15.

You're right on this one, current 12, old 15. Across the tennis courts.


I think you've juxtaposed the numbers of the holes here, because otherwise, you're losing me...

Yup, I boobed the numbers.

So, just like Sean asked (and I'm assuming this to be the case because putting 14's pin 25' to the right would place it deep in the schule) 15 is in the wrong place?:chinscratch: I would think the temporary target in the same spot for weeks prior and Gordy's confidence in placement would not indicate such a discrepancy and, if true, is most disheartening since Sean J. and I are the ones that went through the effort to put the sucker in the ground.

Clarity?

25 feet to the right and a little further puts 14's pin smack dab in the middle of the fairway in the obvious green location that lets you put from anywhere within 25 feet or so around it. It may not be exactly 25 feet, but you get the point.

The temp target kept getting moved because it was in the way of the pin.

As for 15, we didn't set anything in stone, and it came out better than I expected. The exact words were something to the effect of "teepad somewhere near the old old tee area, and the pin a little shorter and to the right." The pad is a little close to the trees in front of it for my comfort, but I throw sidearm on the hole anyway so I'm not gonna break my hand if I foot fault.

Don't be disheartened. You did some good work out there, and I'm apparently the only one that cares.

[Yoduh]

Hole 1 needs a new pin placement. old hole one was a really tricky shot that required alot of skill. new hole ones is the easiest birdie in the world(overstated, but have not played many courses with an easier hole 1 that were supposed to be somewhat challenging). Also the green is dangerous to stand on. It needs to be moved permanently to the right and baack. The rock pile could be ob in a tourney. I have been thinking this forever and I know others have figured this out as well. Now that 2 is moved there is no reason not to fix it..

[Parks]

I agree with you on Hole 1. The only thing to take into consideration is shots from 1 and 17 crossing onto each other's fairways. However, I think that can be mostly avoided with a good pin placement.

[White Walls]

you could move the basket for hole 1 north about 30-40 feet. (basically what yoduh said) it would eliminate rhbh hyzers, and probably lhbh hyzers too. making the hole a little longer and having it require a straighter approach would make it a lot harder. something like that would make it play a lot like the 'old' hole 1 too.

[Sean Johnson]

While I will miss the easy bird, I agree with everyone on moving hole 1. Besides, I've been overshooting it anyways :)

[Burge]

25 feet to the right and a little further puts 14's pin smack dab in the middle of the fairway in the obvious green location that lets you put from anywhere within 25 feet or so around it. It may not be exactly 25 feet, but you get the point.I grok.

The temp target kept getting moved because it was in the way of the pin.Come to think of it, I do recall it being in this location. I thought the change was 'official':rolleyes:. Oh well, I'm sad to say that digging the hole for its present location was a royal pain in the arse (lots of big rocks):bricks:, but I think it would be worth it to go through the trouble of digging it out and putting it in the originally intended spot.

As for 15, we didn't set anything in stone, and it came out better than I expected. The exact words were something to the effect of "teepad somewhere near the old old tee area, and the pin a little shorter and to the right." The pad is a little close to the trees in front of it for my comfort, but I throw sidearm on the hole anyway so I'm not gonna break my hand if I foot fault.I agree, and so do I(RHFH) on this hole. It's still a good deuce opportunity, but the basket is a little better protected and those saplings will continue to get bigger, making it even more tricky.

Don't be disheartened. You did some good work out there, and I'm apparently the only one that cares.I wouldn't say you're in a class by yourself, but at least you're on a short list.;)

[Burge]

I emphatically agree with moving 1. I've been bombed on several times while putting ever since the tee was moved and would like to see this changed. It really has become the new most dangerous spot on the course.

[Parks]

Jshrack commented that I should post more of what is planned for DR on here.

In order.

Hole 2's pin will be moved somewhat to the right. No exact pin location was set, but I think the general consensus was that it was to the right and short of the path, beyond the dead tree.

Hole 3's pin will be moved up the hill and put just left of the path. There are a couple good areas, one that is as long as the current pin and one a little deeper. I think either one will work.

Hole 6 and 9 will probably be changed as a pair due to the erosion alongside 9, but there is little urgency for this change since it isn't severe. Hole 9's pin will be moved to the left, somewhat in the vicinity or hole 6's current pad, but not so far as to put it in the line of fire from hole 4. Hole 6's tee will be moved somewhere near the path where you come down from hole 5, and the pin will be moved out into the middle of old 8's fairway. This is a very cool shot if you've ever looked at it from this angle.

I've gone over the changes for 7, 8, and 15 elsewhere in this thread.

It hasn't been formally set in stone, but hole 1's pin will probably be moved back and to the right toward the open area near the rocks to increase both safety from hole 11 and the challenge. Hole 11's teepad may also move back to the path where it used to be, but I think that is just exchanging one safety issue for another (16 and 11 vs. 1 and 11).

I don't think its been discussed much, but either 17's pin or 2's teepad may be moved due to a fairly obvious conflict there. I'm of the opinion that putting 2's teepad near the fishing sign will make the hyzer route over 17's pin undesirable for people throwing with less than 500' of power, since it will be quite wide.

Another thing that hasn't been discussed but I think should be done is to move 14's pin out to the fairway area instead of locked against the jail trees. With the club's permission and a bag or two of concrete, this is something that I would be happy to do myself. I've heard claims of massive rocks in this area, though. Poop.

[Parks]

I typed this all up and most of it was already posted by the Public Relations board member Bob:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoduh View Post
Hello?? Anyone? Ferris? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?
The SDGA Board met on Satuday, June 12 to hammer out the details for the changes made to Downriver.

The changes that we voted in were:

1. Hole 2 would be changed such that the teepad will be moved somewhere near the "fishing sign" and the pin will be moved to the right some to direct discs away from the river and bank. Hole 2's current teepad can be left in place and used for Hole 12.

2. Hole 3 would be moved down the hill to prevent erosion behind the teepad. The pin would be moved up the hill to reduce the chance of discs going into the river or toward 4's teepad.

3. Holes 7's teepad will be moved back and to the left to direct discs more away from the river on the drive.

4. Hole 8's pin will be moved inland. The specifics are up in the air, but the shot everyone seemed to like was in between the area for 7's current teepad and old 8's fairway. The changes for hole 7 and 8 will ensure that the fairways don't cross, the hole 7 teepad area will be safer, and will alleviate the erosion issue near hole 8's pin.

5. Hole 14's teepad and pin will be moved back about 30 feet to allow more room for hole 15 to be adjusted without really changing the shot.

6. Hole 15's teepad and pin will be adjusted to prevent discs from going over the eroded hillside. An exact setup wasn't laid out, but it will likely be using the old teepad and the pin will probably be moved a little shorter and to the right.


Those are all the changes that were voted on.

There is also a suggestion to change holes 6 and 9, but it was deemed non-critical since the erosion along 9 is negligible since it is mostly rocky terrain on the bank. Its possible that those two holes could be changed in the future, but it is low priority.

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Fly free and straight to the pin!
Reply With Quote

[Burge]

Hole 2's pin will be moved somewhat to the right. No exact pin location was set, but I think the general consensus was that it was to the right and short of the path, beyond the dead tree. The sleeve for 2's new pin location is already in the ground and I would say that it's pretty much in the exact place that you're describing. Look around on the ground..it has a red cap. I know that Joe was trying to create a dry lake 'hazard' to protect the few saplings guarding the hole, but the pin needs to get moved because the combination of the new pad and the old pin actually increases the chances of discs going over the edge.

I don't think its been discussed much, but either 17's pin or 2's teepad may be moved due to a fairly obvious conflict there. I'm of the opinion that putting 2's teepad near the fishing sign will make the hyzer route over 17's pin undesirable for people throwing with less than 500' of power, since it will be quite wide.As I've stood on the new pad and looked at where the pin is going to be(soon), I agree that this is a problem, and that moving the pad, unfortunately, is the best solution. 17 was already shortened when it was changed from 20 and shortening it further would just be sad.:(

Another thing that hasn't been discussed but I think should be done is to move 14's pin out to the fairway area instead of locked against the jail trees. With the club's permission and a bag or two of concrete, this is something that I would be happy to do myself. I've heard claims of massive rocks in this area, though. Poop.I've already expressed my alignment on this and, if permission is manifested, pm me or post for some help and I will do my best to finagle out of whatever responsibility I probably have at the time to give you a hand. I've got the 16lb. tamp iron that dug the last hole and most rocks wont argue with it. Plus, that earth in the fairway (trail) will be well packed. Maybe we could get Joe Glo to join in--he still has my shovel.;)

[Yoduh]

Quote by Parks:
It hasn't been formally set in stone, but hole 1's pin will probably be moved back and to the right toward the open area near the rocks to increase both safety from hole 11 and the challenge. Hole 11's teepad may also move back to the path where it used to be, but I think that is just exchanging one safety issue for another (16 and 11 vs. 1 and 11). End Quote by Parks

Hole 11's tee is still way more dangerous because new players can quite easily hyzer into the bowl of 1 which even if the pin is moved to a much better spot for me and other experienced players newer golfers are still going to land over by the bushes by old 1's pin and even shorter and to the left which is exactly where newer players throw from hole 11.
I have never heard of anyone getting hit teeing on hole 11. Most golfers with enough power to birdie hole 16 know if they have thrown a shot that could potentially injure people on Tee of 11. Also the people teeing on hole 11 have a clear unobstructed view of discs coming in their direction. Much safer than having your back turned to a disc coming in from behind you from a golfer that has no idea you are down below.

[Parks]

Also the people teeing on hole 11 have a clear unobstructed view of discs coming in their direction.

The view is definitely not unobstructed, especially if the disc is coming in a bit low or fading hard.

[Yoduh]

The view is definitely not unobstructed, especially if the disc is coming in a bit low or fading hard.

If its low then it gets me in the ankle not the head.

[Parks]

Not necessarily.

[Yoduh]

Ideally we should plant some trees at Downriver in a bunch of these places. Trees just to the left of 11's old tee would prolly suffice. Old 11's tee is safer than new.. the proof is in the pudding. That is why we are talking about these changes in the first place. I've never heard of anyone getting hurt on 11's tee because anyone that can throw far enough knows to yell four. Just as well wheneverI walked up to that tee the first thing I did was walk up and see if anyone was on the tennis court. Most people did this without thinking about it. That way you have plenty of time to react if you hear 4.

[coryreu]

Ideally we should plant some trees at Downriver in a bunch of these places. Trees just to the left of 11's old tee would prolly suffice. Old 11's tee is safer than new.. the proof is in the pudding. That is why we are talking about these changes in the first place. I've never heard of anyone getting hurt on 11's tee because anyone that can throw far enough knows to yell four. Just as well wheneverI walked up to that tee the first thing I did was walk up and see if anyone was on the tennis court. Most people did this without thinking about it. That way you have plenty of time to react if you hear 4.

They would also block your view if a disc was flying in your direction.

[Parks]

Trees such as pine trees and some others can let you see fairly well while still catching discs.

[jshrack]

I saw an anchor hole for a new #1...
Nothing in it yet though.

[Gordy #21004]

Pins on the way:shocked:

[jshrack]

New pin location for 1?!?

[psychodwarf]

New pin location for 1?!?

about 50 feet from where it is at,over by the rocks

[jshrack]

I know where the hole was already dug...
I didn't know it was authorized though.
That is sweet to hear!
Need any help putting it in?:biggrin2:

[psychodwarf]

just waiting on new pin for it .as for it being authorized not sure but there was at least 2 board members there when work was done on hole #2 AND there is a safety issue with #1 and hole #11 so as far as i know that is why the hole for #1 is dug to move it back away from #11`s fairway

[Sky Pilot]

Read the Charter

[psychodwarf]

Read the Charter

sure if i knew where you put it .

[Yoduh]

I needs to be moved because it isn't safe and because it's really lame, compared to old hole 1.

[Gordy #21004]

Move the pad or move the pin or both. When this gets done it will be our first pair of twin pads and twin pins. Hope ya'all like the alt. pin position.:chug:

[Timber]

sure if i knew where you put it .

http://www.sdga.us/about/

[psychodwarf]

Read the Charter

ok jeff i read the charter still dont know why you wanted me to look it up .It had nothing to do with the subject that was being talked about ? care to explain ?

[Sky Pilot]

Ah, just forget it.

SP

[jshrack]

You guys talkin' alt pad for #1 too?
When did this happen?
Was a new 18 pad part of this discussion too?
I see things are started... :cheerleader:
Sounds like fun, lemme know if you need labor before the snow.



As for Jeff's remark, I believe he was referring to the need for a Board vote to validate any club/coordinator decision.

[psychodwarf]

Was a new 18 pad part of this discussion too?
NO there is nothing wrong with 18`s tee pad .You guys talkin' alt pad for #1 too?
that is a thought right now but i think it will be 11`s tee pad that gets moved back (again working on the safety issue`s) we have also brought timbers for erosion work on hole #4 and for making of stairs from the bottom of the hill by tee pad#4 going up to hole #10.As for Jeff's remark, I believe he was referring to the need for a Board vote to validate any club/coordinator decision. then he might just as well have said that because the charter does not mention that.

[Sean Johnson]

I think that Jshrack is referring to the fact that someone has dug out what appears to be an alternate teepad for 18. They didn't get very far along, but it definitely looks like the beginning of a teepad.

[psychodwarf]

I think that Jshrack is referring to the fact that someone has dug out what appears to be an alternate teepad for 18. They didn't get very far along, but it definitely looks like the beginning of a teepad.THAT ONE WAS NOT A CLUB PLANNED ONE. that one has been filled in but we are still VERY dissappointed:explode: at ALL the small CUT trees someone has DECIDED:explode: to trim down to the ground ..

[Wobbly Bob]

We had a good day at Downriver yesterday and accomplished a few things on Jon's list.



Moved the tee-sign from old #3's tee-box to #3's new position.
Installed a bench at #3.
Installed a timber on the downside of #15's tee-box to reduce erosion.
Installed a bench at #15.
Utilized the old picnic table top for a bench on #2.
Repaired 2 areas of vandalism.
Recovered the anchor from old #12.


Thanks to Jon Verbarg, Joe Barnett and Gordy Crafts for these improvements.

[Burge]

Recovered the anchor from old #12.

Goodbye old #12, http://www.nwdiscgolfnews.com/forum/image.php?u=578&dateline=1278014057Woe! The days of throwing from the pit over the hill of death are gone!:waaah:

[jshrack]

THAT ONE WAS NOT A CLUB PLANNED ONE.

Maybe giving our members input on the planning process would circumvent some of these issues?


Also, was there a work party?
I know I would have gotten my hands dirty if I had heard anything.
:yawn:

[psychodwarf]

Maybe giving our members input on the planning process would circumvent some of these issues
from what i have learned IT was a club member who took it upon themselves to make a new tee pad because THEY were`nt happy with the one that was there.

[Stimpi]

If there are club members out there digging teepads to their own liking, I suspect there are club members out there tearing out trees and bushes to their own liking as well.
I've always thought the tearing up of the course was attributed to the "folfers", who care less about the course,club,sport or anything but drinking beer and throwing drivers, but I'm starting to think they would be too lazy or uninterested to modify the course. It may be "low-down, sneaky", club members. Man, that's like having a spy from the evil forces in our midst.

[Gordy #21004]

Maybe giving our members input on the planning process would circumvent some of these issues?


Also, was there a work party?
I know I would have gotten my hands dirty if I had heard anything.
:yawn:

These posts are input in the the process and they do carry weight in the process. I read all these posts regularly, respond from time to time, and sometimes make posts of my own. The present body of work at DR regarding pin and pad movement is coming to a close. The improvements for signage, tee surfaces, a putting area and benches will continue. An item that is getting serious consideration for pin placement is an alternate for #1. In a previous post I announced that extra anchors are on the way. An exact spot remains to be chosen.....Other than that there are one or two more hole changes to get done. There is some erosion control to install. Simultaneously similar upgrades for pads , signs and benches are underway at HB. I think Jon is planning a work party for this Sat. at HB. Watch for a post.:chug:

[Tek Zeus]

DeLaveaga (http://delaveagadiscgolf.com/index.php) is a great blueprint for any course layout. Its 27 holes, has A, B, C, and Tournament Sunday locations. It has a great meeting, practice area and central location. This model is proven time and time again. It is exciting creating and doing new things to the course. Following De La’s lead is a smart and proven way to go…







:trophy:

The De Laveaga Disc Golf Course is one of the most highly rated disc golf courses in the world. It is famous for its inspiring natural setting, as well as for its uncompromising challenge. The course was originally installed in 1984, with the vision & hard work of local Tom Schot [1991 Grand Master World Champion.] The original course consisted of 18 holes, with the trademark green 4 X 4 posts as the targets.

Since then, the park's development has seen the course grow to 27 Holes outfitted with Professional "pole holes". The funds to pay for these "pole holes", cement tee pads, and other necessities have been generated from the activities of the De Laveaga Disc Golf Club, as well as from the generosity of some local players.

The course is currently & solely maintained by the De Laveaga Disc Golf Club, which was formed in 1986 to promote disc golf in upper De Laveaga Park. The Santa Cruz City Parks & Recreation Department, does not currently contribute to the maintenance of this portion of the park. Therefore, it is the assumed responsibility of all who share in the pleasures of this game, in this park, to help in its necessary upkeep.

Common sense is the rule at De Laveaga-
# Be Earth Consious-
# Pack Your Trash-
# DO NOT ALTER THE COURSE-
# Play Quietly-
# Be Aware of Flying Discs-
# Now is a good time to quit smoking-
# Enjoy

This is a User-Supported Disc Golf Course-you can help in the continued upkeep and improvements to this course by making a contribution to the De Laveaga Disc Golf Club whose goal is to promote the sport of disc golf to the community (donations can be mailed to the address below). Due to the increased number of players, please, adhere to the following, in order that all may enjoy a fun & timely round of disc golf:
# Please keep your group to five or less. If your group is larger than five, consider splitting into multiple groups. Please be considerate of other players in and out of your group.
# If your group is large (or slow), allow other groups to proceed through, if asked. Do NOT throw on other groups. Wait until they have holed out before throwing. Then ask politely if you can "Shoot Through".
# The LAW states you must leash your pets. It can cost you big bucks if the park rangers find your pet unleashed. Also, please, prevent your pet from digging critter craters in the fairways. Dog fights are not cool either, if you know your dog is an egomaniac, leash them, or leave them.
# The LAW also states NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES in the park. Just so you know. Please, RETURN ALL FOUND DISCS TO THE LOST & FOUND. LOSERS WEEPERS IS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE LAW.


The De Laveaga Disc Golf Club
343 Soquel Ave #45
Santa Cruz, CA 95062