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.