Not a big fan of the new layout...

[Esatchel Bantastic]

i dont really understand why it has been changed in this way. i know that there are plans in the works and somethings still need to change. i wish that we could play the old 21 hole course again cuz that was course that i played on for the first time and i have been playing for 14 years now. the out of bounds on hole 2 and 17 is just rediculous. having it in the middle of the fairway of 2, its not really beginner friendly ya know.

[jshrack]

You are not the first to make any of these points; nor will you be the last. :headbang:
If you think the current OB is bad you definitely haven't seen the proposed plans.
I guess none of us really have...

The Board seems to have made a clear decision though.
:angel:

[Parks]

The nice thing about OB is that if you think its too challenging, then you are always free to ignore it in casual rounds.

Regardless if you play OB or not, I would suggest always waiting for people to finish putting out on 17 before driving on 2, and waiting for people to clear 2's fairway before driving on 17 for both courtesy and safety.

[General Scales]

I have no problem with the OB. So long as it's understood that big arms are going to try that Hyzer right over 17. That's a little spooky to me

[Sean Johnson]

I have no problem with the OB. So long as it's understood that big arms are going to try that Hyzer right over 17. That's a little spooky to me

/\/\/\/\This. I'm not a cannon arm, but I still think that this the far and away the best route. I know as long as I can get past the tree before it hyzers out, I'll be in bounds with a clear shot at the basket. I never throw when anyone is on 17, but I wouldn't throw on them even if I were taking a different route (still a chance of turning it over towards their basket). As long as the people throwing on two are courteous and safe, then hopefully no one will take one in the head. :eek:

[Wobbly Bob]

The backstop tree behind Hole #17's basket will be a Mando :cop: on Hole 2 and you will have to throw on the left side of it :slapface: or take a stroke and drop at the tree. :explode:

[General Scales]

The backstop tree behind Hole #17's basket will be a Mando :cop: on Hole 2 and you will have to throw on the left side of it :slapface: or take a stroke and drop at the tree. :explode:

So instead of having a two route with risk and reward, we have effectively taken the preferred route away and made it a drop?:headbang:

I know it's probably for safety sakes but really?:smash: How about we just put the clowns mouth hole back into effect as well? :shooting:

I figure if you leave it the way it is with the understanding that players who throw while players on 17 are in putting range will take a one or two stroke penalty and be forced to re-tee without question. That way you keep it safe for everyone involved with out eliminating the preferred route. Now it's a side arm dream or a hopeful rhbh hyzer flip.

[Stimpi]

Oh, yeah... thanks for reminding me about the Clown's Mouth. hahahahahaha

[General Scales]

Oh, yeah... thanks for reminding me about the Clown's Mouth. hahahahahaha

I'd really like to forget that hole but I'm afraid of clown's...and their holes:laughing:

[Wobbly Bob]

So instead of having a two route with risk and reward, we have effectively taken the preferred route away and made it a drop?:headbang:

I know it's probably for safety sakes but really?:smash: How about we just put the clowns mouth hole back into effect as well? :shooting:

I figure if you leave it the way it is with the understanding that players who throw while players on 17 are in putting range will take a one or two stroke penalty and be forced to re-tee without question. That way you keep it safe for everyone involved with out eliminating the preferred route. Now it's a side arm dream or a hopeful rhbh hyzer flip.

There's an easy shot there, if you throw an Epic or a thumber. :laughing:

The hole was designed with the tree being a Mando from the very beginning, the peninsula with the OB was my addition to the hole for the tournament.

I gained a few strokes on Gordy one year thanks to the clowns mouth.

[General Scales]

There's an easy shot there, if you throw an Epic or a thumber. :laughing:

The hole was designed with the tree being a Mando from the very beginning, the peninsula with the OB was my addition to the hole for the tournament.

I gained a few strokes on Gordy one year thanks to the clowns mouth.

Um, didn't the PDGA make the Epic illegal this year for any tournament play? Just thought I'd throw that out there since they don't conform to any disc standards. Which means, do we have to have bag check at the beginning so people know? I can't remember where I read that though. Where's Chuck when you need him to chime in?

As for the OB issue, it really doesn't bother me. I throw my Stalker straight down the frickin middle. Hopefully I don't overshoot into the ob though. I heard it's including the road this year? It's just fun to throw the big Hyzer. Usually leaves you parked.

[Parks]

Um, didn't the PDGA make the Epic illegal this year for any tournament play? Just thought I'd throw that out there since they don't conform to any disc standards. Which means, do we have to have bag check at the beginning so people know? I can't remember where I read that though. Where's Chuck when you need him to chime in?

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGA_approved_discs_032111.pdf

The Epic is still on the approved discs list, so its still tournament legal right now.

It doesn't meet the current disc standards, but it is grandfathered in.

I suspect it will remain legal until pros start winning A+ tiers with it (sooooo, never).

Chuck beat me to it in the rules discussion.

[jshrack]

I find the proximity of the OB to the basket is very suspect and extremely difficult to see from a distance.
18ft is not much of a landing zone, felt really good about 3 drives Wednesday and 2 of them stuck OB while dropping in my 'confident ring' (~25ft.)

I don't really mind a P3 on the scorecard... yet, couldn't you extend the rope to include the road inbounds? Seems like the road is a safe landing for anyone who throws 275-350 and wants to keep tourney clear of the 'water' hazard in play. Without the road you leave a 15ft fairway to the left and a 10ft fairway to the right, surrounded and separated by OB.

If nothing else... are there plans to vertically extend the OB lines and make them visible?!?

Having clear signage around the perimeter and a clear starting point for the line will really enhance the players ability to play the hole correctly.

Painting the lines so they don't move, putting up signs (especially the mando,) clearing up the line for the OB water hazard. All these things will reduce confusion and mis-played holes during the tourney.

Bob, if you need help, you know my number.
I will be happy to stop by and grab orange marking paint and I have bamboo rods I am willing to contribute as well.

[jshrack]

Bob, I painted (with marking paint) the OB line that was still in place and placed a few elevated markers at your anchors.

I also pulled the line tight on the back side and placed markers where I remembered the line being set... it was loose on the ground when I arrived.
I did NOT paint this part of the OB on the ground though, I figured you should have the right to authorize the location before it was painted.
Please check out the markers I put up and do as you wish.
I have another can of marking paint to get it painted before Doubles if you want.

Call me

[Yoduh]

The hole in question is ridiculous and I hope we never play it again. I would like to see 17's basket moved farther to the right and se 18's teepad moved farther to the left into the trees by the stick pile for safety.. Hole 11 needs to be put back on the road before somebody dies!!!! That is so dangerous! Before if you were on 11 (14) discs were coming towards you from in front of you and only generally experienced players could hit you. Now Discs fly at your head from behind and if the thrower can toss 100 feet they could split your head open.. it's gonna happen!

[General Scales]

The hole in question is ridiculous and I hope we never play it again. I would like to see 17's basket moved farther to the right and se 18's teepad moved farther to the left into the trees by the stick pile for safety.. Hole 11 needs to be put back on the road before somebody dies!!!! That is so dangerous! Before if you were on 11 (14) discs were coming towards you from in front of you and only generally experienced players could hit you. Now Discs fly at your head from behind and if the thrower can toss 100 feet they could split your head open.. it's gonna happen!

I'd agree with you on hole 11. Last round, we are on hole one 1. Putting out. Cody Miller is at the edge of the circle lining up his putt and Lefty Tom is standing behind him as his caddie. Somebody off 11 throws a meat hook sidearm. No four, no hollers. The disc hit a tree 2 feet behind his head. If it had missed the tree, Tom wouldn't of gotten up quick. I think we could eliminate this if we made the left hand side tree next to 11 a mando at least. Takes my preferred route away but it's some sort of solution to a the potential danger.

[Wobbly Bob]

I have installed a prototype measure on hole #16 to see if your disc is out ten meters or not. The end of the cable is 32' 10" (ten meters according to the PDGA book) from the center of the pole.

Check it out and post your input here.

[jshrack]

Every change I have seen at that course (last 18 months) has watered down the course AND made things more dangerous.

I really don't understand why our club is letting our top level course focus be recreational golf... It would be nice to have a course that pushes the pros harder rather than trying to make more thumber holes.

[jshrack]

it is nice to know that this is how you feel ...DID any of you wonder after jeff crum took the city parks dept thru the park WHY we HAD to move some holes ?? IT was because you the players had created so MUCH erosion on hole #15 & #2 that the city said MOVE IT OR LOSE THE WHOLE PARK . As for it being more dangerous IT WAS worse with all the crosovers or should i go and get the woman who was hit in the face off of old hole #12 and had her nose broke and HAS NOT been back playing SINCE . as for pushing the pros as soon as the city lets us have peoples park to put in baskets they have another plot of land that (hopefully) will be a much better PRO course ( of course its just the pros who spend most of thier time whinning about how BAD the course is )

Jeff took the city through the park of his own will... JEFF IS NOT OUR FACILITIES COORDINATOR and shouldn't be making any decisions in place of the club, we have a club to make decisions... oh wait, we did and were overturned (by Jeff and Eric.) Should I also mention that our, safety concerned, decision maker split somebody's head open at DRO last year... on one of the holes our club 'deems' safe and refuses to consider changing. (Not meant to be a jab, just a fact)

It was not worse 18 months ago... I almost got hit with FIVE (5) discs at DRO this year. I saw at least FIVE (5) more come within 10ft of taking people out, I heard a total of two FORE calls in those 10 shanks. This is now an issue in MANY places it wasn't an issue before... especially around putting greens and tees. Maybe it was my lack of experience but I didn't notice any of this while a spectator last year.

Problem Areas: (1's green, 6's tee, 7's tee, 9's green, 11's tee, 14's green, 15's fairway, 16's tee, 17's green, and 18's tee.)
I just listed TEN holes where you constantly have to watch your back to make sure you don't catch one in the dome... this is NOT SAFE. We have added 3 of those.

Next, are the pro's the only ones complaining about the course? Well, I am not a pro... so that doesn't stick. Here are some reasons anyway:
Because it used to be a challenging environment, now the drunken groups of 8 and can easily hit you with their shanked drive from the next tee over.
Yes, it is more accessible to a recreational crowd, thus no complaints from recreational players.
I would argue that it's more dangerous and less enjoyable to a 'serious' player...

Lastly, why would we destroy a good course in hopes that Peoples Park gets approved?
Why don't we put in the effort to make a good challenging course where we already have the set-up and move on to Peoples when we actually get approval... Which I doubt will ever happen. So many golfers assume People's will happen, if they find one arrow head or historical campfire, its likely we will never be allowed to use the land.

[psychodwarf]

Every change I have seen at that course (last 18 months) has watered down the course AND made things more dangerous.

I really don't understand why our club is letting our top level course focus be recreational golf...

didnt you get started in recreational golf ? as for the course changing ask the city why we had to move some baskets .. does the word " EROSION " come to mind ?? as for dangerous it was worse with the crossovers. I guess thats what happens when MORE people find out how much FUN disc golf is and just want to play THEY make the sport a little more frustrating because they arent as good as some people playing out there and it does become a little bit of a problem but hey all we need is MORE courses to play on .. problem solved ( i could be wrong though )

[psychodwarf]

Jeff took the city through the park of his own will... JEFF IS NOT OUR FACILITIES COORDINATOR and shouldn't be making any decisions in place of the club, we have a club to make decisions... oh wait, we did and were overturned (by Jeff and Eric.) Should I also mention that our, safety concerned, decision maker split somebody's head open at DRO last year... on one of the holes our club 'deems' safe and refuses to consider changing. (Not meant to be a jab, just a fact)

It was not worse 18 months ago... I almost got hit with FIVE (5) discs at DRO this year. I saw at least FIVE (5) more come within 10ft of taking people out, I heard a total of two FORE calls in those 10 shanks. This is now an issue in MANY places it wasn't an issue before... especially around putting greens and tees.

Problem Areas: (1's green, 6's tee, 7's tee, 9's green, 11's tee, 14's green, 15's fairway, 16's tee, 17's green, and 18's tee.)
I just listed TEN holes where you have to watch 360 degrees to make sure you don't catch one in the dome... this is NOT SAFE. We have added 3 of those.

Next, are the pro's the only ones complaining about the course? Well, I am not a pro... so that doesn't stick. Here are some reasons anyway:
Because it used to be a challenging environment, now the drunken groups of 8 and can easily hit you with their shanked drive from the next tee over.
Yes, it is more accessible to a recreational crowd, thus no complaints from recreational players.
I would argue that it's more dangerous and less enjoyable to a 'serious' player...

Lastly, why would we destroy a good course in hopes that Peoples Park gets approved?
Why don't we put in the effort to make a good challenging course where we already have the set-up and move on to Peoples when we actually get approval... Which I doubt will ever happen. So many people assume People's will happen, if they find one arrow head or historical campfire, its likely we will never be allowed to use the land.

justin:
i WILL not argue this with you online .. YOU have already made your self quite clear months ago . I ask you this HAVE you had to deal with the city parks dept ? they are kinda slow at doing things . and most of those hole you have listed HAVE some EROSION problems ..

[jshrack]

justin:
i WILL not argue this with you online .. YOU have already made your self quite clear months ago . I ask you this HAVE you had to deal with the city parks dept ? they are kinda slow at doing things . and most of those hole you have listed HAVE some EROSION problems ..

Yeah, I have had to deal with Taylor from the parks dept. I found him to be INCREDIBLY helpful and easy to work with. I also worked with Toni from the parks foundation, also helpful and easy to work with.

We have a ton of support from the parks dept but our Club seems to have a tough job getting timely information.
After putting together the Grant Proposal and dealing with SDGA and the Spokane Parks Dept... I have a tough time assuming the Parks Department is the problem.

Erosion problems can be dealt with in a multitude of ways, were other options discussed?

[Yoduh]

We just need to move 11's teepad back to the original spot. That would save skulls on hole 1.:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang:

[Sky Pilot]

Meeting with City Parks Operation Manager – Taylor Bressler
Friday January 22nd 2010
2:00 p.m.
People’s Park

We had originally agreed to meet on Tuesday 2-19 but Taylor called to say that the meeting he was in was going long.
We rescheduled for the next day and I was there along with Kevin Sakus, Eric Brown & Joe Royer. Kevin brought 3 of the new sturdy yellow bucket stands he’d built to place out in the park. However Taylor called about 2:40p.m., saying that he’d had another conflict.
We rescheduled for Friday 2-22, however though all were invited from the previous day – I was the only one that made it.
At first Taylor didn’t want to walk into the Park too far, but as it turned out he became more interested in how the land was “coming back’ since it’s been blocked to automobile access for many years now. He would exclaim things like, “Wow! This is really different now!”
We walked all around the perimeter of the Park and I was able to cover all of the questions I had written down. We had a great time talking and commenting on the land, it’s current use by the various “nudies” and “cruisers” and how we could use it for the purpose of Disc Golf.


►Concerning any Disc Golf Course under the Park Department:

Note: The following principals apply to all our courses.

Questions:

►How close can we put Tee Pads to the banks?

Taylor is okay if throw away from the banks – but not so close that there is even the remotest chance of breaking down a ledge and on any hole we design, “there must be no opportunity to throw into the water.”
In addition, I told him that I wanted to stay off the trail on the north side (at People’s) so as to not interfere with those walking down it. He thought that this was a good idea.

►Can we put a Basket on the ‘knoll’ (at People’s) toward the end of the peninsula?

He said that we shouldn’t put anything on that knoll – we have to stay over south of the knoll so that we’re not in any way near the nude beach. There are about 5 large pines south of that area and Taylor and I agreed to use this as a boundary. I had wanted to be able to put a basket on this knoll or hill as it would have been the only place where we would be able to see the confluence of the two rivers at a closer vantage point.

►Is it alright to do some minor brush or branch clearing for fairways?

“No tree or bush cutting.” Taylor said that because of some fairway clearing in the past at Downriver there were so many complaints from the neighborhood that “we almost lost the whole deal!” In other words, he was almost forced to close the course. He said, “Don’t F$#% with the land!” Don’t cut trees because the neighborhood just goes nuts!” No bush or tree cutting – you can whip down grasses but do not pull them up.” The group needs to know that they need to respect the whole deal.”

►Will the City Park Department help us with fundraising?

"No.” Taylor said.
However toward the end of our walk he did seem open to perhaps pointing out some people that I might be able to approach for sponsorship.

►Would it be alright to set out our bucket stands out at Camp Sekani sometime?

He doesn’t want anything at Sekani at this time. We need to keep our focus on People’s Park.

►Do the same rules apply at Downriver?

“Yes.” Note: The same rules apply at any course under the Park Department – including Highbridge.

►Other comments Taylor made…

•“I will have some gravel brought down to downriver (for the parking lot) and you guys can have a work party and spread it around.”
•“The parks will not provide any maintenance.”
•“I don’t care if they smoke but they gotta watch their butts!”
•“You can put a picnic table down here (People’s) for tournaments, but pack it in and pack it out.”

We need to keep in mind that this is not 'our' land. We are authorized to use it for Disc Golf within the City's parameters.
It's pretty obvious that we don't have a 'perfect' course at Downriver. It is on the other hand a beautiful scenic place and a tremendous opportunity for us to develop a better course.
It's literally painful to hear so many negative things being said about myself or the board or anyone for that matter. I appreciate those that work hard to improve the courses - as I'm sure others do. You know who you are if your active in the process of improvement. Kudos to all that endure and persevere through difficulties.

Sky Pilot
SDGA President

[Wobbly Bob]

We just need to move 11's teepad back to the original spot. That would save skulls on hole 1.:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headban g::headbang::headbang::headbang:

While at Downriver last Saturday helping the GPS crew, I conducted a small survey concerning hole #11's tee box. I asked at least 30 people which tee position they preferred and all but 2 said that they liked the original position better. Safety concerns and player opinion seem to favor moving the tee box back to it's original position. We will however have the possibility of people on hole #16 driving on to #11 tee as we did in the old days.

[jshrack]

Reading Jeff's report, I wonder why we are still able to use holes 8 or 9? Seems like one of the worst erosion issues we have is near those two pins, yet these aren't even under consideration for changing... :confused:

Also, it seems that Jeff got his questions answered but didn't really consider any of the rest of the club in his inquiry (which seemed oddly focused on People's Park.)
Once again, I don't think we should have a recreational golfer designing our courses, especially when the club voted someone else into the position. Sadly, the last two people the club has voted into this position quit participating with the club due to similar situations...
I also repeat myself when I argue that communication between the club and the Parks Dept. should be handled by our Public Relations representative, who was also chosen by the club to represent them in specifically this way.
The continued mis-communications/lack of communication should be reason enough to review the process.

I asked earlier but was not answered:
Were any other options even considered for erosion control management?
Or did we just decide our only, most drastic option, was to re-design the course to circumvent erosion control issues.

[jshrack]

While at Downriver last Saturday helping the GPS crew, I conducted a small survey concerning hole #11's tee box. I asked at least 30 people which tee position they preferred and all but 2 said that they liked the original position better. Safety concerns and player opinion seem to favor moving the tee box back to it's original position. We will however have the possibility of people on hole #16 driving on to #11 tee as we did in the old days.

I don't know where that tee used to be located.
Could we plant some trees or set up a protective barrier (net or something) to block the original 11 tee from hole 16?
We do have options... right?

[Sky Pilot]

Reading Jeff's report, I wonder why we are still able to use holes 8 or 9? Seems like one of the worst erosion issues we have is near those two pins, yet these aren't even under consideration for changing... :confused:

Also, it seems that Jeff got his questions answered but didn't really consider any of the rest of the club in his inquiry (which seemed oddly focused on People's Park.)
Once again, I don't think we should have a recreational golfer designing our courses, especially when the club voted someone else into the position. Sadly, the last two people the club has voted into this position quit participating with the club due to similar situations...
I also repeat myself when I argue that communication between the club and the Parks Dept. should be handled by our Public Relations representative, who was also chosen by the club to represent them in specifically this way.
The continued mis-communications/lack of communication should be reason enough to review the process.

I asked earlier but was not answered:
Were any other options even considered for erosion control management?
Or did we just decide our only, most drastic option, was to re-design the course to circumvent erosion control issues.

Concerning Justin’s post:

Reading Jeff's report, I wonder why we are still able to use holes 8 or 9? Seems like one of the worst erosion issues we have is near those two pins, yet these aren't even under consideration for changing...

#8 & #9 are stalled because people like them. Yet they have been in ‘consideration’ for quite some time.

Also, it seems that Jeff got his questions answered but didn't really consider any of the rest of the club in his inquiry (which seemed oddly focused on People's Park.)

Please take a look at the date of this conversation with Taylor Bressler – this was over a year ago when questions about our development of People’s Park were just being formulated.

In addition, I was precisely there representing the club as President. I was there to help to ‘open up’ People’s Park as a future Disc Golf Course. Did you miss the part where others were invited but didn’t show up? I was there to work and develop a relationship with the City Parks Department as encouraged by the club and the Board of directors. This has been and continues to be a good relationship. Please go back and read my 1st report online at our website. One of the reasons I got involved with the club was to answer the seemingly un-anserable questions about expansion of High Bridge, the “A” street question and where the money went that the City spent from a grant from the Latah Creek Community and other issues. This positive relationship is a part of how People’s Park was presented to the club and subsequently Camp Sekani.

Once again, I don't think we should have a recreational golfer designing our courses, especially when the club voted someone else into the position. Sadly, the last two people the club has voted into this position quit participating with the club due to similar situations...

The current changes were agreed to (except Hole #2) by the Board on site and later ratified by the Club. Hole #2’s Tee Pad placement wasn’t placed where I expected (from our Board meeting) that it would be placed, but some leeway is implied in the decisions… The current changes (as the post states) were in response to the City’s regulations about erosion etc. As far as I know – there is currently no one person that is designated as the ‘course designer’

I also repeat myself when I argue that communication between the club and the Parks Dept. should be handled by our Public Relations representative, who was also chosen by the club to represent them in specifically this way.

P.R. is always an aspect of any President’s role.

The continued mis-communications/lack of communication should be reason enough to review the process.

I am in regular communication with the City Parks Operation Manager and the Board. There have also been several Board/Club Meetings recently. I’m also in regular communication with disgruntled Club Members.

I asked earlier but was not answered:
Were any other options even considered for erosion control management? Or did we just decide our only, most drastic option, was to re-design the course to circumvent erosion control issues.


Re-design was the City’s specific solution to erosion. Lesser steps were not suggested.
If we do decide to undertake an erosion control project, this would not supplant the directions of those who are over us in the hierarchy.
FYI - Erosion control is a specific part of the job description of the Facilities Coordinator



Sky Pilot
President SDGA
:angel:

[Yoduh]

While at Downriver last Saturday helping the GPS crew, I conducted a small survey concerning hole #11's tee box. I asked at least 30 people which tee position they preferred and all but 2 said that they liked the original position better. Safety concerns and player opinion seem to favor moving the tee box back to it's original position. We will however have the possibility of people on hole #16 driving on to #11 tee as we did in the old days.

Who cares.. you can see it coming at you instead of being blind sided. only 30-40% of players can hit people from 16 to 11. Where as 95% of golfers can hit people in the back of their head on 1. Ask more people I f you need to.

[Yoduh]

I don't know where that tee used to be located.
Could we plant some trees or set up a protective barrier (net or something) to block the original 11 tee from hole 16?
We do have options... right?

good idea. We have needed to plant some trees down there for quite some time.

[Yoduh]

Public relations officer does not mean that they are the only officer allowed to speak with the public or in this case the mayor. I read your report Jeff, while I am glad to hear that Taylor was interested in being more helpful, it seems that there is no real news. I think tying us up with People's park is good way to keep us out of Sekani so he doesn't have to deal with either. I am of course patient because I know how first hand how slow the political machine works.. but there isn't really any news..

[Wobbly Bob]

I think tying us up with People's park is good way to keep us out of Sekani so he doesn't have to deal with either. I am of course patient because I know first hand how slow the political machine works.

Ain't that the truth!!

[psychodwarf]

good idea. We have needed to plant some trees down there for quite some time.

first you need the go ahead from the city then you need to find a tree that will last WITHOUT being cut down by club members .. planting trees on hole 11 is a good idea BUT unless you plan on being there 24/7 till the tree takes roots and grow right .. some people go down there JUST to trash the place .. but planting trees to help hole #11 needs at least 5 years for the trees to adjust and live and be strong enough to take the damage of disc`s being thrown at it ..

[psychodwarf]

I don't know where that tee used to be located.
Could we plant some trees or set up a protective barrier (net or something) to block the original 11 tee from hole 16?
We do have options... right?

and yet you keep bad mouthing the club BUT you dont even know where the old tee pads have been .. justin ,are planning to come up with the money for the trees or net you want ? are you planning to come down and put all that up just to watch the "recreational golfers " be in your way ? speaking of rec golfers ..Didnt you start OUT as a rec golfer ?

[Yoduh]

and yet you keep bad mouthing the club BUT you dont even know where the old tee pads have been .. justin ,are planning to come up with the money for the trees or net you want ? are you planning to come down and put all that up just to watch the "recreational golfers " be in your way ? speaking of rec golfers ..Didnt you start OUT as a rec golfer ?
The club could esily afford to plant trees, bushes or put up nets.. I have never heard of anyone getting hurt on the old teepad. Its EASY to see a disc coming in. JEFF. I am not asking the city to plant trees. The city would not have a problem with planting trees. What they don't like is trees being cut down.. Asking the city to plant a native tree in an undeveloped park is akin to checking to see if you get desert after you did all your chores and ate your vegetables :D If we planted a group of them they would have a very good chance of surviving. Being that close to the road I would bring a 5 gallon bucket of water for them whenever I went to go play a round. I would also suggest pushing sticks in the ground with ropes running around the trees so people don't traipse through them. unless they have to get their disc.. Could build another beautiful rock lake. I know somebody who has accomplished such a task:seeya: Hey, Joe. Take it easy on the newbies. I've heard Shrack say good things about the club. He has also volunteered alot of effort on the clubs behalf. If you participate fully you are allowed to gripe. My parents always told me that if you don't vote than you can't gripe.. Well Shrack not only voted, he ran for office, he also headed a major grant application for the club. Your efforts are dually noted. Many thanks for you efforts to help our courses remain beautiful. Everybody's best efforts are valuable and important, just as their opinions and ideas.
Shrack, the teepad is to the left of the existing one on the road, back a little bit.. if you look at the ground you'll see a faded wobbly Bob faded teepad.

[psychodwarf]

Originally Posted by Yoduh
Shrack, the teepad is to the left of the existing one on the road, back a little bit.. if you look at the ground you'll see a faded wobbly Bob faded teepad.
now its back by the parking lot ON the paved road as for the faded Wobbly bob teepad that will be resprayed and have the AM AND REC painted in the middle so those that feel like throwing an extra 30 feet can and if you dont feel like it move up to the other tee pad .. problem fixed .. OH WAIT. someone wont like it .. srry ..

[Yoduh]

now its back by the parking lot ON the paved road as for the faded Wobbly bob teepad that will be resprayed and have the AM AND REC painted in the middle so those that feel like throwing an extra 30 feet can and if you dont feel like it move up to the other tee pad .. problem fixed .. OH WAIT. someone wont like it .. srry ..

I love the new pad I just pray that people that can't throw 220 feet on average throw from the shorter pad for safety's sake.

[Yoduh]

Thanks again for all the work down there today Joe

[Burge]

now its back by the parking lot ON the paved road as for the faded Wobbly bob teepad that will be resprayed and have the AM AND REC painted in the middle so those that feel like throwing an extra 30 feet can and if you dont feel like it move up to the other tee pad .. problem fixed .. OH WAIT. someone wont like it .. srry ..

here's an idea--i'm sure it would cause all kinds of problems ...

if the teepad is on the road, it's an unsafe place to be.. from drives on #16;
if the teepad remains where it is now, it makes putting on #1 an unsafe place to be;
so...
how about changing the new tee for #1 into the tee for #11 ; changing the new tee for #17 into the tee for #1; and making the old unused tee for #1 into the new tee for #17...?

this would be a solution that would not have to 'grow', or be as obtrusive and expensive as nets, eliminates the issue of the #11 tee location altogether, creates three new challenging lines of approach (especially #11 and #17), could offer the possibility of a "b" pin location for #16, ...and could result in a whole new tangent of contention ;)

...but seriously, it could be a solution to a lot of issues....no?

[jshrack]

here's an idea--i'm sure it would cause all kinds of problems ...

if the teepad is on the road, it's an unsafe place to be.. from drives on #16;
if the teepad remains where it is now, it makes putting on #1 an unsafe place to be;
so...
how about changing the new tee for #1 into the tee for #11 ; changing the new tee for #17 into the tee for #1; and making the old unused tee for #1 into the new tee for #17...?

this would be a solution that would not have to 'grow', or be as obtrusive and expensive as nets, eliminates the issue of the #11 tee location altogether, creates three new challenging lines of approach (especially #11 and #17), could offer the possibility of a "b" pin location for #16, ...and could result in a whole new tangent of contention ;)

...but seriously, it could be a solution to a lot of issues....no?

I am having trouble picturing all of it... but from what my mind CAN wrap itself around, that sounds very interesting and possibly quite cool!

[psychodwarf]

here's an idea--i'm sure it would cause all kinds of problems ...

if the teepad is on the road, it's an unsafe place to be.. from drives on #16;
if the teepad remains where it is now, it makes putting on #1 an unsafe place to be;
so...
how about changing the new tee for #1 into the tee for #11 ; changing the new tee for #17 into the tee for #1; and making the old unused tee for #1 into the new tee for #17...?

this would be a solution that would not have to 'grow', or be as obtrusive and expensive as nets, eliminates the issue of the #11 tee location altogether, creates three new challenging lines of approach (especially #11 and #17), could offer the possibility of a "b" pin location for #16, ...and could result in a whole new tangent of contention ;)

...but seriously, it could be a solution to a lot of issues....no?

hey BURGE where the hell did this come out ? at last count you only had 2 brain cells AND they were BOTH fighting for air and a escape route OUT !! jk.. lol .. as for the layout it might work out..but it seems to be pretty good just to tried to think right now worked late on the courses out at four monds today will go by mon and look at that .

(P.S.) I HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN CALLS :pullhair:THAT THE NEW TEE PAD:pullhair: FOR #11 :waaah:SUCKS:waaah:. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME NOW THAT .. :dancing:

[psychodwarf]

FYI - Erosion control is a specific part of the job description of the Facilities Coordinator


wouldn`t this BE something THE WHOLE CLUB should worry about ? i mean if the whole park has Erosion problems THEN SHOULDN`T WE THE SDGA CLUB BE DOING SOMETHING TO STOP IT OR SLOW IT DOWN OR REVERSE IT . i do not think THIS should be left up to just one person

[Yoduh]

here's an idea--i'm sure it would cause all kinds of problems ...

if the teepad is on the road, it's an unsafe place to be.. from drives on #16;
if the teepad remains where it is now, it makes putting on #1 an unsafe place to be;
so...
how about changing the new tee for #1 into the tee for #11 ; changing the new tee for #17 into the tee for #1; and making the old unused tee for #1 into the new tee for #17...?

this would be a solution that would not have to 'grow', or be as obtrusive and expensive as nets, eliminates the issue of the #11 tee location altogether, creates three new challenging lines of approach (especially #11 and #17), could offer the possibility of a "b" pin location for #16, ...and could result in a whole new tangent of contention ;)

...but seriously, it could be a solution to a lot of issues....no?

That would make hole 11 even easier.. hole one still boring and hole 17 a tough hole but with no real place on the whole entire course to bomb a drive. Hole 17 is indespensable.. We used to play old 1 to old 20 at the DRO. I would see weird kicks and bad shots fly at 18's green.. It's not a bad idea it's just not ideal imho.
The new solution should eliminate most of the problems except for newbies now hyzering into 16's fairway. an am pad should take care of that.

[Burge]

That would make hole 11 even easier.. hole one still boring and hole 17 a tough hole but with no real place on the whole entire course to bomb a drive. Hole 17 is indespensable.. We used to play old 1 to old 20 at the DRO. I would see weird kicks and bad shots fly at 18's green.. It's not a bad idea it's just not ideal imho.
The new solution should eliminate most of the problems except for newbies now hyzering into 16's fairway. an am pad should take care of that.

yeah...i went and threw these approaches this morning and there are more issues than solutions...it would make #1 and #11 too easy, not that #1 isn't too easy already, and I agree about the lack of a place to rip a big hyzer

...i miss old #20 too :(

[Yoduh]

yeah...i went and threw these approaches this morning and there are more issues than solutions...it would make #1 and #11 too easy, not that #1 isn't too easy already, and I agree about the lack of a place to rip a big hyzer

...i miss old #20 too :(

The best solution is a complete redesign here but I don't see that happening until somebody gets hurt baad.. which is when we probably just loose the course. So I'm hoping nobody gets hurt in the next 35 years while I'm playing..:merlin:

Planting trees by the dead trees on hole 12 would be really smart. The dead Maples would help protect the trees for a couple of years until they fell.. Otherwise that is going to be a pretty easy hole soon.

[General Scales]

The best solution is a complete redesign here but I don't see that happening until somebody gets hurt baad.. which is when we probably just loose the course. So I'm hoping nobody gets hurt in the next 35 years while I'm playing..:merlin:

Planting trees by the dead trees on hole 12 would be really smart. The dead Maples would help protect the trees for a couple of years until they fell.. Otherwise that is going to be a pretty easy hole soon.

I thought that a redesign would've been the best option for Downriver too. There is a lot of things you could do with that land if people would let it just happen. I don't know who to point fingers at on this one since there are many people on both sides of the fence.

The hole that I have the most problem with is 7 and 8. I have been almost killed on 7's teepad more than I can count.

[jshrack]

I thought that a redesign would've been the best option for Downriver too. There is a lot of things you could do with that land if people would let it just happen. I don't know who to point fingers at on this one since there are many people on both sides of the fence.

The hole that I have the most problem with is 7 and 8. I have been almost killed on 7's teepad more than I can count.


I completely agree, I actually aim for 7's tee pad in tourney time... it's a safe shot (in terms of golf consistency, not hitting people)

I have heard a couple people toss around the idea of switching 7's tee with 8's basket.
Not my idea but it seems like it would help bypass multiple issues by removing the crossing fairways and reducing the erosion near 8's current pin.

I think what it really comes down to is that everyone has ideas they want included rather than giving control to an individual or small group committee with a broad understanding of the game and it's skill-sets.

If the club were to work together they develop a legitimate design plan and implement it over a 1-3 year period, they could work toward a common goal and accomplish some amazing results.

Currently we have new groups constantly tinkering with a revolving and inconsistent set of goals in mind.
I have a feeling this accounts for the drastically different perspectives on the course development process.

[Yoduh]

7 and 8 is dangerous. I see the best move being moving 7's teepad forward or moving it up next to the bottom of the hill of hole 8. Putting the tee of 7 where 8's basket is makes the hole a routeless non risk reward par 3.5. A hole that would work but would not separate skill level in an appropriate, measureable, consistent design. There would be no preferred shot other than to lay up. make an upshot and take a 3. It would also still be in danger of people throwing off of 8. The hole as it stands has quite a bit of luck. involved to get a 2 but it is gettable. During the DRO I took a flippy wraith RBH and threw it 2/3 of the way down the fairway and made my up and got 3 3's. It was birdied a couple times and there were many 4's and a few 5's. The proposed change would eliminate the 2 and cause players to throw safe drives which would increase the number of 3's and decrease the number of 4's and eliminate most 5's. These changes will create a smaller scoring swing and less separation of scores. Making a boring hole basically. Similar to hole 2 at the DRO except without any birdies at all.

[jshrack]

7 and 8 is dangerous. I see the best move being moving 7's teepad forward or moving it up next to the bottom of the hill of hole 8. Putting the tee of 7 where 8's basket is makes the hole a routeless non risk reward par 3.5. A hole that would work but would not separate skill level in an appropriate, measureable, consistent design. There would be no preferred shot other than to lay up. make an upshot and take a 3. It would also still be in danger of people throwing off of 8. The hole as it stands has quite a bit of luck. involved to get a 2 but it is gettable. During the DRO I took a flippy wraith RBH and threw it 2/3 of the way down the fairway and made my up and got 3 3's. It was birdied a couple times and there were many 4's and a few 5's. The proposed change would eliminate the 2 and cause players to throw safe drives which would increase the number of 3's and decrease the number of 4's and eliminate most 5's. These changes will create a smaller scoring swing and less separation of scores. Making a boring hole basically. Similar to hole 2 at the DRO except without any birdies at all.

You are completely correct in your reasoning about #7...
thanx for the explanation rather than just saying it didn't work, out of hand.

Moving the tee up as you suggest could definitely increase the number of birdies (depending on the position) or could make the hole a much more technical shot, keeping much of the scoring range while limiting the distance and danger.

I would love to see the locations you have in mind.

As for #8, it would open up that entire area...

other ideas anyone?

[Yoduh]

You are completely correct in your reasoning about #7...
thanx for the explanation rather than just saying it didn't work, out of hand.

Moving the tee up as you suggest could definitely increase the number of birdies (depending on the position) or could make the hole a much more technical shot, keeping much of the scoring range while limiting the distance and danger.

I would love to see the locations you have in mind.

As for #8, it would open up that entire area...

other ideas anyone?

If we make these changes can we make 6 a par four or put hole 8 back?

I want to put a mando on hole 6 to make it a righty only hole.. Plenty of lefty shots at DR

[Parks]

Jeremy, I agree with you for the most part on hole design/theory, but I think you're wrong on 7/8 and 11.

Putting the tee of 7 where 8's basket is makes the hole a routeless non risk reward par 3.5. A hole that would work but would not separate skill level in an appropriate, measureable, consistent design. There would be no preferred shot other than to lay up. make an upshot and take a 3.

First, the current hole is routeless. 15 foot gaps at over 200 feet, where being off your line by 2 feet could send you off a tree into the river. If you look from behind 8's where the teepad would be, you can see a very clearly defined 30 footish gap to aim a righty hyzer safe shot for those with less than 450' of power (99.9% of us) or a lefty/sidearm distance route which can result in birdy for those with 400+ feet of power (1% of us, or more for tourney players). A righty with enough power to throw the hyzer to the log can grab more consistent deuces on this hole than the current hole because the route is a LOT less random.

There would also be a very risky RHBH turnover route that could produce 2's, but its tight and random. But those wanting to take the risk could reap the reward.

It would also still be in danger of people throwing off of 8.

Nope. Look at the area like 30 feet behind 8's pin. If 8's pin is moved, this is a very safe place to be, in addition to having vision.

The hole as it stands has quite a bit of luck. involved to get a 2 but it is gettable.[/quote

Agreed 100%.

[QUOTE=Yoduh;96756] During the DRO I took a flippy wraith RBH and threw it 2/3 of the way down the fairway and made my up and got 3 3's. It was birdied a couple times and there were many 4's and a few 5's.

This also sounds really boring, with a silly safe shot and random kicks off trees that will kick and create 4s/5s. Having a high score differentiation based mostly on luck is not desirable at all.

The proposed change would eliminate the 2 and cause players to throw safe drives which would increase the number of 3's and decrease the number of 4's and eliminate most 5's. These changes will create a smaller scoring swing and less separation of scores. Making a boring hole basically. Similar to hole 2 at the DRO except without any birdies at all.

2's would not be eliminated for top players, and those are the only players that would not consider this a par 4. If you wanted to make this a true par 4, then moving the pin back and down some (not far enough for high water to infringe on the green) then you could. I believe we have a bit of room to move back there, even though its state land.

I highly doubt this would result in more 3's, because the line of your first drive is more important. You want to avoid the hill on the right a lot more, so you can't turn over (or fade out as a lefty) nearly as much as the current hole without being punished.

I think it would reduce the 5's, but that is because you would have a lot less random kicks into the woods or river due to the better defined line. Scoring would be based more on skill than luck.

It wouldn't be perfect but it is better than the current hole and would be a lot better than yet another boring birdie hole at DR, which is what a hole with the tee at the base of the hill would be.

As for hole 11, your claims of a safety difference between the teepad on the road and the one to the right are greatly exaggerated. Neither one is very safe, nor is either one terribly unsafe. The difference is probably negligible.

[Parks]

If we make these changes can we make 6 a par four or put hole 8 back?

I want to put a mando on hole 6 to make it a righty only hole.. Plenty of lefty shots at DR

I believe the current proposal for a fix for 6/9 would be to move 9's pin closer to 6's current teepad to prevent shots into the river, and moving 6's teepad and pin up.

I'm fairly indifferent about what it would do to hole 9, since that's not a great hole to begin with. The approach is interesting, but that is all. With hole 6, I think that it would be trading a good hole for a good hole. It would be a nice gentle anhyzer for a righty (what I wanted hole 14 to be, but the pin was put way too far left) and a really tough hyzer hole for a lefty.

Keep in mind that this change is unlikely to happen, as hole 9 has minimal erosion problems. 6 and 9 will probably remains as they are.

[Yoduh]

Jeremy, I agree with you for the most part on hole design/theory, but I think you're wrong on 7/8 and 11.



First, the current hole is routeless. 15 foot gaps at over 200 feet, where being off your line by 2 feet could send you off a tree into the river. If you look from behind 8's where the teepad would be, you can see a very clearly defined 30 footish gap to aim a righty hyzer safe shot for those with less than 450' of power (99.9% of us) or a lefty/sidearm distance route which can result in birdy for those with 400+ feet of power (1% of us, or more for tourney players). A righty with enough power to throw the hyzer to the log can grab more consistent deuces on this hole than the current hole because the route is a LOT less random.

There would also be a very risky RHBH turnover route that could produce 2's, but its tight and random. But those wanting to take the risk could reap the reward.

I agree that the current hole is not very good and that luck does determine alot of the scoring swings. I never proclaimed that the current hole as great. I think its adequate. There is a safe shot that I hit fairly consistently and you can go for it shot. The hole has gotten better since that tree snapped.
The RBH on the newly proposed teepad is a 440 hyzer BOMB. The Top players cannot consistently throw that shot through that last gap. Then hit the 40-50 foot putt. Don't know how much time you've spent playing with the top players but nobody would like that hole and there wouldn't be a good scoring variation.

If we can move the pin deeper than there could be something workable but I'm not sure. Need to look closer next time I'm out which won't be until next Tuesday at the earliest.

Nope. Look at the area like 30 feet behind 8's pin. If 8's pin is moved, this is a very safe place to be, in addition to having vision.

[QUOTE=Yoduh;96756]The hole as it stands has quite a bit of luck. involved to get a 2 but it is gettable.[/quote

Agreed 100%.



This also sounds really boring, with a silly safe shot and random kicks off trees that will kick and create 4s/5s. Having a high score differentiation based mostly on luck is not desirable at all.



2's would not be eliminated for top players, and those are the only players that would not consider this a par 4. If you wanted to make this a true par 4, then moving the pin back and down some (not far enough for high water to infringe on the green) then you could. I believe we have a bit of room to move back there, even though its state land.

I highly doubt this would result in more 3's, because the line of your first drive is more important. You want to avoid the hill on the right a lot more, so you can't turn over (or fade out as a lefty) nearly as much as the current hole without being punished.

I think it would reduce the 5's, but that is because you would have a lot less random kicks into the woods or river due to the better defined line. Scoring would be based more on skill than luck.

It wouldn't be perfect but it is better than the current hole and would be a lot better than yet another boring birdie hole at DR, which is what a hole with the tee at the base of the hill would be.

As for hole 11, your claims of a safety difference between the teepad on the road and the one to the right are greatly exaggerated. Neither one is very safe, nor is either one terribly unsafe. The difference is probably negligible.

Do you play golf at Downriver on the weekend?Anybody that can toss a disc 100 feet can hit somebody on hole 1 from 11 and not even know that they are over there.
From hole 16 30-40% of golfers can get to the tee. Most of those players know to yell Fore and you can see them throwing from the Old pad of 11. Those are facts, not exaggerations. Negligence was what was gonna cause an injury by course designers who do not carefully analyze what the most common mistakes a newbie golfer makes.
P.S. Heads up walking up hole 16's fairway.. Newbie RBH's will be bombing about 1/3 up the fairway:slapface:

[Parks]

Do you play golf at Downriver on the weekend?Anybody that can toss a disc 100 feet can hit somebody on hole 1 from 11 and not even know that they are over there.
From hole 16 30-40% of golfers can get to the tee. Most of those players know to yell Fore and you can see them throwing from the Old pad of 11. Those are facts, not exaggerations. Negligence was what was gonna cause an injury by course designers who do not carefully analyze what the most common mistakes a newbie golfer makes.
P.S. Heads up walking up hole 16's fairway.. Newbie RBH's will be bombing about 1/3 up the fairway

Those may or may not be exaggerations, but calling them facts is an... exaggeration. Everyone is playing this by ear and feel, and no one is doing studies to determine that "30-40%" of golfers can do any one thing.

Saying that anyone that can toss a disc 100 feet and hit someone on 1 is ridiculous, unless that person on 1 also threw their disc 100 feet to the left.

Even if that were the case, then moving the tee to the road would mean that anyone that can throw 120 feet could hit people on 1, and the fairway is angled more toward 1. How is that safer?

[Burge]

I can attest to the fact that I like to throw a long turnover drive on 11 to try and scoot in under the big shade tree for a deuce and have, more than once:slapface:, turned it over a bit too much and wound up right at the pin for 1 (after yelling FORE, of course). I can also attest to the fact I have, more than once:angry:, been bombed on while putting on 1--from either teepad.

I think that qualifies as 'unsafe' at least, if not dangerous.

[SeanT00]

First of all, I like the idea of shifting all the tees for 11, 1, and 17 to the right. So what about moving hole #8's tee to the bottom of the hill and throwing back towards the basket for 6 along the bottom of the hill (this was old hole 'something' I think...backwards)? This would eliminate most (if not all) crossfire from 7 and allow 7 to stay where it's at while at the same time eliminating a possible river disc shot and extra erosion to the hill that is climbed for the current tee for 8? It would also finish at a nice place to allow an easy crossover to the tee for hole 9.

[littlevahn]

In terms of #7 -8, what about moving the tee pad of 7 BACK, Its already one of the most fun shots to try and launch a drive out, why not just make it harder and scoot it back into those trees on the right (if my memory serves). At least it would protect the people teeing off on 7 (kind of). You would just have to deal with walking out from the tee pad but i think that's better then worrying while teeing off.

[littlevahn]

First of all, I like the idea of shifting all the tees for 11, 1, and 17 to the right. So what about moving hole #8's tee to the bottom of the hill and throwing back towards the basket for 6 along the bottom of the hill (this was old hole 'something' I think...backwards)? This would eliminate most (if not all) crossfire from 7 and allow 7 to stay where it's at while at the same time eliminating a possible river disc shot and extra erosion to the hill that is climbed for the current tee for 8? It would also finish at a nice place to allow an easy crossover to the tee for hole 9.

I like these ideas as well

[General Scales]

I've always been in favor of taking tee 6 and keeping it there, removing 6's basket, putting 6's basket down in old 8's basket position (the 21 hole layout) and making it a par 4. I would then keep hole 7 (current 7) in the exact same place. Remove hole 8 (erosion and pollution from plastic flying into the river) and put the pad for current 9 (which would be new 8) in the position of 8's current basket and making this a par 4 as well. The only issue being we'd have to design a new hole to fill the void of the hole that was removed. Of course, this is not going to happen. Still, an idea that could be worked into the mix...

[psychodwarf]

to ALL of you putting up ideas for new tee pads and baskets .. keep them coming SOME of them JUST might work out right now i am working on erosion issues on hole #4 so i am writing theses down for later thoughts on the matter ..i understand that everyone would like a 21 hole golf course back and with the ideas that are here i see no reason (as of yet ) why some of these can not be put in place ... THIS IS WHAT MEMBER INPUT IS ABOUT! WOOHOO !!!

[Burge]

First of all, I like the idea of shifting all the tees for 11, 1, and 17 to the right. So what about moving hole #8's tee to the bottom of the hill and throwing back towards the basket for 6 along the bottom of the hill (this was old hole 'something' I think...backwards)? This would eliminate most (if not all) crossfire from 7 and allow 7 to stay where it's at while at the same time eliminating a possible river disc shot and extra erosion to the hill that is climbed for the current tee for 8? It would also finish at a nice place to allow an easy crossover to the tee for hole 9.

The problem with playing old 8 backwards is that you would have holes that face each other with players throwing upshots or bombs at each other.

Shifting the three pads to the right, as I suggested earlier, would, as Yoduh pointed out, make 11 easier (plus, dangerous for people teeing off on 12), 1 even more easier (unless you stick to the 'B' pin), and 17 would become a long technical nightmare for a righty or a big sky-hyzer for a lefty, but would take away the one good place on the course to tear one off.

I retract my previous suggestion.

[Sky Pilot]

The problem with playing old 8 backwards is that you would have holes that face each other with players throwing upshots or bombs at each other.

Shifting the three pads to the right, as I suggested earlier, would, as Yoduh pointed out, make 11 easier (plus, dangerous for people teeing off on 12), 1 even more easier (unless you stick to the 'B' pin), and 17 would become a long technical nightmare for a righty or a big sky-hyzer for a lefty, but would take away the one good place on the course to tear one off.

I retract my previous suggestion.

I think the idea of creating a new hole #8 by teeing off somewhere along the base of the hill and throwing down old hole #8's fairway has merit. This would eliminate two problems and be fairly easy to implement. 1st - This would eliminate erosion of the bank by the basket at hole #8's current position.
2nd - This would eliminate the crossover problem and satisfy the safety issues as long as it didn't conflict with those players finishing hole #6 and walking to 7's tee.
I've never seen anyone throw their drive or upshot to much farther than the green for hole 6. As long as the new basket position for 8 was out of range it would work.
Perhaps someone could bring a portable down to try out some possible tee/pin placements.

Sky Pilot
:angel:

[Sean Johnson]

I could swing that. I've got a Discatcher Sport, which would be a small pain in the a** to get down the hill, but doable. Griff's got a collapsible Mach Lite that would be easy to lug down there too.

[psychodwarf]

i have the two bucket baskets we used for the moving of old 14 &15 i could bring them down and you can use them to find out what will or will not work ..

[Sky Pilot]

It would be interesting to try out some possibilities


Sky Pilot

[Yoduh]

I would be interested to go tweak these ideas. evening after 5 and some weekends work for me.

[Burge]

okay okay...wait a minute...

didn't I suggest something like this about six months ago? :rolleyes2:


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?

just sayin'...

[Lyounger]

I guess I really don't understand what all the confusion and fuss is about here...

This is my recollection:

Several years ago the SDGA was responding to evergrowing safety concerns due to the crossing fairways. In addition, the city expressed concerns about erosion and path beat down.

The overwhelming opinion of the club at that time was a complete redesign. However, we were towards the end of the season and didn't want to make major changes without getting as much input as possible.

Some (immediate) minor changes were proposed to address the major safety and environmental concerns and a call went out for redesign ideas that could be implemented early the following spring.

These two agendas got convoluted and confused with one another. A polarity began that I don't believe was founded.

The board was new and had growing pains. The communication and progress stalled. Members were not keeping up with deadlines for input to either design and felt left out when decisions were made. The whole thing turned into a cluster and the only result was some temporary changes to try to address the safety and erosion issues.

It's well expressed that these changes have diluted the course and very few are even remotely happy about them.

Soooooooo....NOW is the perfect time to start gathering input for a total course redesign for DownRiver. The club and Board can set deadlines for proposals in phases so they can be reviewed and narrowed down to the best possible layout to be voted on by the club members and installed early next spring.

This time those of you who felt so left out will have another opportunity to be heard and be able to vote for the features you like best. You will just have to pay attention to the deadlines for input and the dates for voting on layouts.

It is very possible to do this in a democratic manner with consideration going to the city's requirements. The club has worked out some of it's communication difficulties and I believe this project could be very successful. We would end up with a challenging course, endorsed by the majority of clubmembers and compliant with the city's requirements.

Heck, it might even bring the club together in a stronger way with more casual/rec players joining so they could provide input and more mutual respect amongst all the members.

I definitely will do everything I can to make it to the next SDGA meeting and bring this up as a topic for discussion.

[Yoduh]

Well put LY!!!:chug:

[jshrack]

The overwhelming opinion of the club at that time was a complete redesign. However, we were towards the end of the season and didn't want to make major changes without getting as much input as possible.

Some (immediate) minor changes were proposed to address the major safety and environmental concerns and a call went out for redesign ideas that could be implemented early the following spring.

These two agendas got convoluted and confused with one another.

It would be very nice if our Board answered that call for a complete redesign.
The charter gives the Board the right to approve or deny the proposal, not ignore it.

If our Board were to develop a set of guidelines, it would give everyone an opportunity to present a design concept. These designs could then be compiled as choices for a legitimate and binding club vote. (Assuming the City Parks Department rules are a subset of the Board guidelines.)

Seems like a win/win situation :biggrin2: