Re design VS Alt pin locations Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      PDGA #42116

      Comment


      • #18
        Which course to work on?

        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Stimpi View Post
          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!

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              #1 priority for 2009

              Originally posted by catalystdg View Post
              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

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by SDGA View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  More the merrier, is right.

                  Originally posted by catalystdg View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Moving On

                    Originally posted by SDGA View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SDGA View Post
                      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
                      Rely on Me

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sky Pilot View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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.
                          Last edited by Parks; February 23rd, 2010, 09:57 AM.
                          We're at our best when it's from our hips

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.
                            Last edited by Timber; February 23rd, 2010, 06:56 AM. Reason: brain kept going after fingers stopped typing

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Parks View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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.
                                We're at our best when it's from our hips

                                Comment

                                Announcement Announcement Module
                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X