Not a big fan of the new layout... Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Yoduh View Post
    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.
    "Honest work is for the downtrodden and the Polish"
    Cleveland Brown

    Comment


    • #17
      Ten Meters out

      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.
      Fly free and straight to the pin!

      Comment


      • #18
        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.
        When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a Frisbee.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by psychodwarf
          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.
          Last edited by jshrack; April 18th, 2011, 02:10 PM.
          When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a Frisbee.

          Comment


          • #20
            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 )

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by jshrack View Post
              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 ..

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by psychodwarf View Post
                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?
                When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a Frisbee.

                Comment


                • #23
                  We just need to move 11's teepad back to the original spot. That would save skulls on hole 1.
                  Relax and enjoy your hair
                  TNT Yardworks.com

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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
                    Rely on Me

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Yoduh View Post
                      We just need to move 11's teepad back to the original spot. That would save skulls on hole 1.
                      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.
                      Fly free and straight to the pin!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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...

                        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.
                        Last edited by jshrack; April 20th, 2011, 10:48 AM.
                        When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a Frisbee.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Wobbly Bob View Post
                          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?
                          When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a Frisbee.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by jshrack View 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...

                            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
                            Rely on Me

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Wobbly Bob View Post
                              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.
                              Relax and enjoy your hair
                              TNT Yardworks.com

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by jshrack View Post
                                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.
                                Relax and enjoy your hair
                                TNT Yardworks.com

                                Comment

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