Not a big fan of the new layout...

[Burge]

Originally Posted by SeanT00

First of all, I like the idea of shifting all the tees for 11, 1, and 17 to the right. So what about moving hole #8's tee to the bottom of the hill and throwing back towards the basket for 6 along the bottom of the hill (this was old hole 'something' I think...backwards)? This would eliminate most (if not all) crossfire from 7 and allow 7 to stay where it's at while at the same time eliminating a possible river disc shot and extra erosion to the hill that is climbed for the current tee for 8? It would also finish at a nice place to allow an easy crossover to the tee for hole 9.

The problem with playing old 8 backwards is that you would have holes that face each other with players throwing upshots or bombs at each other.

Shifting the three pads to the right, as I suggested earlier, would, as Yoduh pointed out, make 11 easier (plus, dangerous for people teeing off on 12), 1 even more easier (unless you stick to the 'B' pin), and 17 would become a long technical nightmare for a righty or a big sky-hyzer for a lefty, but would take away the one good place on the course to tear one off.

I retract my previous suggestion.

[Sky Pilot]

Originally Posted by Burge

The problem with playing old 8 backwards is that you would have holes that face each other with players throwing upshots or bombs at each other.

Shifting the three pads to the right, as I suggested earlier, would, as Yoduh pointed out, make 11 easier (plus, dangerous for people teeing off on 12), 1 even more easier (unless you stick to the 'B' pin), and 17 would become a long technical nightmare for a righty or a big sky-hyzer for a lefty, but would take away the one good place on the course to tear one off.

I retract my previous suggestion.

I think the idea of creating a new hole #8 by teeing off somewhere along the base of the hill and throwing down old hole #8's fairway has merit. This would eliminate two problems and be fairly easy to implement. 1st - This would eliminate erosion of the bank by the basket at hole #8's current position.
2nd - This would eliminate the crossover problem and satisfy the safety issues as long as it didn't conflict with those players finishing hole #6 and walking to 7's tee.
I've never seen anyone throw their drive or upshot to much farther than the green for hole 6. As long as the new basket position for 8 was out of range it would work.
Perhaps someone could bring a portable down to try out some possible tee/pin placements.

Sky Pilot

[Sean Johnson]

I could swing that. I've got a Discatcher Sport, which would be a small pain in the a** to get down the hill, but doable. Griff's got a collapsible Mach Lite that would be easy to lug down there too.

[psychodwarf]

i have the two bucket baskets we used for the moving of old 14 &15 i could bring them down and you can use them to find out what will or will not work ..

[Sky Pilot]

It would be interesting to try out some possibilities


Sky Pilot

[Yoduh]

I would be interested to go tweak these ideas. evening after 5 and some weekends work for me.

[Burge]

okay okay...wait a minute...

didn't I suggest something like this about six months ago?

In an effort to move forward with the situation as it stands and offer a suggestion...

I think there could be a better solution for the need to change #8 and instead, add a new challenging hole. Rather than keep the old teepad at the top of the hill, bring the entire hole down to ground level and play the unused old #8 fairway backwards. If #7's teepad does get moved back and to the left (which I assume would be on the road), a teepad for #8 could be placed just behind the two large pines at the bottom of the hill, forcing a tight drive back up the old fairway and keeping sticky-fingered hyzers from bombing on #7's tee. The pin for this new hole would then be placed in the small clearing to the east of #6's pin, but closer to the bottom of the hill and protected from the intended approach by the large shrubs bordering the open area. this would create a medium-length blind dog-leg to the left that would present a challenging deuce for a Pro, but would be a good challenge to keep par for Am/Rec players. There is plenty of heavy protection around #6's pin to ward off upshots with too much gas and there are a few deadfall logs in the clearing that could be drug out and used to demarcate a safe trail--both from #6 pin to #7 tee and from (this hypothetical) #8 pin to #9 tee. If there is no objection to doing so, this proposed hole could be laid out with surveyor's tape and a bucket target. Hmm?

just sayin'...

[Lyounger]

I guess I really don't understand what all the confusion and fuss is about here...

This is my recollection:

Several years ago the SDGA was responding to evergrowing safety concerns due to the crossing fairways. In addition, the city expressed concerns about erosion and path beat down.

The overwhelming opinion of the club at that time was a complete redesign. However, we were towards the end of the season and didn't want to make major changes without getting as much input as possible.

Some (immediate) minor changes were proposed to address the major safety and environmental concerns and a call went out for redesign ideas that could be implemented early the following spring.

These two agendas got convoluted and confused with one another. A polarity began that I don't believe was founded.

The board was new and had growing pains. The communication and progress stalled. Members were not keeping up with deadlines for input to either design and felt left out when decisions were made. The whole thing turned into a cluster and the only result was some temporary changes to try to address the safety and erosion issues.

It's well expressed that these changes have diluted the course and very few are even remotely happy about them.

Soooooooo....NOW is the perfect time to start gathering input for a total course redesign for DownRiver. The club and Board can set deadlines for proposals in phases so they can be reviewed and narrowed down to the best possible layout to be voted on by the club members and installed early next spring.

This time those of you who felt so left out will have another opportunity to be heard and be able to vote for the features you like best. You will just have to pay attention to the deadlines for input and the dates for voting on layouts.

It is very possible to do this in a democratic manner with consideration going to the city's requirements. The club has worked out some of it's communication difficulties and I believe this project could be very successful. We would end up with a challenging course, endorsed by the majority of clubmembers and compliant with the city's requirements.

Heck, it might even bring the club together in a stronger way with more casual/rec players joining so they could provide input and more mutual respect amongst all the members.

I definitely will do everything I can to make it to the next SDGA meeting and bring this up as a topic for discussion.

[Yoduh]

Well put LY!!!

[jshrack]

Originally Posted by Lyounger

The overwhelming opinion of the club at that time was a complete redesign. However, we were towards the end of the season and didn't want to make major changes without getting as much input as possible.

Some (immediate) minor changes were proposed to address the major safety and environmental concerns and a call went out for redesign ideas that could be implemented early the following spring.

These two agendas got convoluted and confused with one another.

It would be very nice if our Board answered that call for a complete redesign.
The charter gives the Board the right to approve or deny the proposal, not ignore it.

If our Board were to develop a set of guidelines, it would give everyone an opportunity to present a design concept. These designs could then be compiled as choices for a legitimate and binding club vote. (Assuming the City Parks Department rules are a subset of the Board guidelines.)

Seems like a win/win situation