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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Yoduh View Post
    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?
    We're at our best when it's from our hips

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Parks View Post
      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.
      Relax and enjoy your hair
      TNT Yardworks.com

      Comment


      • #63
        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?
        We're at our best when it's from our hips

        Comment


        • #64
          Downriver Debate

          Originally posted by Parks View Post
          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.
          Rely on Me

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Parks View Post
            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
            Relax and enjoy your hair
            TNT Yardworks.com

            Comment


            • #66
              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?
              Relax and enjoy your hair
              TNT Yardworks.com

              Comment


              • #67
                I wanted what you wanted...at first

                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
                Rely on Me

                Comment


                • #68
                  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..
                  Relax and enjoy your hair
                  TNT Yardworks.com

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I didn't write the rules...

                    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
                    Rely on Me

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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?
                      Relax and enjoy your hair
                      TNT Yardworks.com

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Yoduh View Post
                        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.
                        We're at our best when it's from our hips

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Please re-read my post and then make a relevant comment - if not just drop it.
                          Rely on Me

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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.
                            Relax and enjoy your hair
                            TNT Yardworks.com

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Clarifications - You're Preaching to the Choir

                              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
                              Rely on Me

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I suggested that too!
                                Relax and enjoy your hair
                                TNT Yardworks.com

                                Comment

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