Quote:
Originally Posted by captain jack
Absolutely nothing.
My original post was going to be much longer, and include our conversation about the ongoing battle for a permanent home for what is now temporary #13, playing down the hill.
The city didnt like Lowells idea of making a new hole north of #16 basket, so the options are now pretty limited.
Of the two remaining spots possible for a new hole, I prefer the idea of one up on the hill beside 18, somewhere up along the trail we used to get to 12 when they were grading the hill.
This info is more along the lines of what would be discussed at the meeting, right ?
Hey, how about having the meeting in here, in a chat room, so more people could attend ?
|
One of my pet peeves about courses is when designers MUST have a certain number of holes (18, or 9 usually) when the space they are using can't realistically hold that amount of disc golf holes. There is nothing wrong with a course that has 7,11,13,15,17, holes etc. and I don't understand why we are still trying to squeeze 18 holes into Terrace Creek. As it stands now you have enough room to make somewhere between 14 and 17 really awesome holes but instead we sacrifice most of the back nine to squeeze 2 or 3 more holes in, I find this ludicrous. We need to work with what we have and what we are given.
The meeting is not a Terrace Creek only meeting and so I don't think the entire meeting will be about the course, but we probably will mention it somewhere when ever we have our meeting. Having it online would be a huge mistake because I think that would severely limit the number of people who could partake including Lowell himself. On the internet there is less order and people (me) have a harder time typing what their thoughts are at times, especially when it's tough to explain how you feel about something.
Sorry if I come off like a total jerk, I feel strongly about my position on this and somewhere along the line between my brain and my fingers I sound much more mean on the internet.