Sunset hills saint louis

[david]

has anyone done the disc golf course out at Sunset Hills park?

[timg]

Hmm.. doesn't look like it's on the site yet. I think there may be a couple of people on here from around the area though but it might take a while for them to make their way back to the forum.

[Khao Pra]

is sunset hills in the fenton area? i used to play around there quite a bit but if it is the same course i am thinking of it is most definetely not worth the trip. many busy walking trails cut right across fairways, sometimes blind fairways. very dangerous setup. of course i may be thinking of another course. ah, now it is getting clearer (been a few years now) but the course i am thinking of is down the street from the crestwood mall if that helps.

[Three Putt]

Watson Trail Park in Sunset Hills is the course just off Lindbergh Blvd near Crestwood Mall. It used to be a decent 9 hole course, although it was set up on a walking path with blind shots that made it inherently dangerous. The walking path was paved and the course has been moved around quite a bit. Only two holes from the original set-up remain, and many of the new holes are short and unchallenging.
I really think there should be some sort of way to flag a course as a recreational course. This course is for local recreational play, which is fine. But there should be a way to just glance at a course listing and know that it is a recreational course so serious players can avoid it. Really the only way to do that now is to give it a bad review, which then makes us buy into the notion that recreational courses are bad. Recreational courses are not all bad, just not designed for serious players. If the course could simply be flagged "recreational " we would not have to destroy it with bad ratings.

[timg]

Three Putt,

That's not a bad idea.. maybe I can put something together that would allow people to mark a course as "Recreational". Although what would be the criteria that would make a course recreational? That would probably have to be made more clear so people don't start marking all sorts of courses as recreational.

Then again, anybody coming to this site is probably looking for more substantial courses to begin with so bad reviews might be the way to go. I know I wouldn't want to travel to another state just to play a rec. course.

[Khao Pra]

i wouldnt play watson trail again if it were in my basement, but that doesn't mean i would call it recreational either, in fact, calling it recreational means that an average non professional player would get the most out of a round when in fact, that same average non professional player is most likely to be the disc wielding person to knock an innocent bystander out simply because they don't know better than to check the walking path before launching the disc.

it is pretty easy to compare La Mirada with watson trail from an innocent bystander perspective, both courses are almost impossible to play without involving casual park users in your round. calling La Mirada a recreational course however would be far from accurate using the watson trail example.

i would call creve couer (sp?) a recreational course due to the repetitive nature of the distance and shot making skills required but i would play creve couer a hundred times before ever going back out to watson trails again. recreational is not a bad thing, to me it just means that it stresses the challenge to the 900 area player and below vs consistently over 900 players. lol using that example now i think ozark mtn is the only non recreational course in the greater st louis area. st louis is definetely hurting when it comes to quality disc golf courses which is a shame considering they love their green spaces and are very fond of the game of disc golf. st louis has the terrain and weather to be competitive with charlotte but in reality falls well below them on the list of worthwhile places to get some rounds in.

[Three Putt]

Wow, you really hate the Lou. Come to Chicago sometime. I'll take you to two dozen courses worse than Watson Trail. If Jefferson Barracks was here it would instantly be the best course in the area. By far. So relax on the St. Louis hating.

I just think we tread on dangerous territory when we blast a course like Watson Trail with bad reviews. I knew the park director who OK'ed that course, and he was very clear that he wanted a "recreational" course i.e. a course that local players could enjoy that would not host big tournaments or attract a lot of non-local play. I was in St. Louis this summer and Watson Trail was full of players on a Tuesday night. If we set up a system that is going to give bad feedback to Sunset Hills for what they are doing, are we not just discouraging parks departments from putting in anything but "championship" courses? Here in Chicago, the 9 hole pitch and putt is often all the land we have available to work with. Should we just skip it and not approach park districts? I know the course I play most often is terrible, but there was very little land to work with and it is 9 baskets. That's more than I had a few years ago. To me it is more fair to put in a review that simply marks it "recreational" rather than giving it the "one" that I would have to give it now. It sends the same message to the serious player...stay away. It is just not as insulting to the people who work hard to get courses in under these conditions.

To me La Mirada is a different issue. It is a championship course. Just because people picnic in the fairways and refuse to move, that does not suddenly make the design "recreational."

The classic quote about Sunset Hills was from Dave Feldberg. A guy was showing him the course and said "This was the first course I played." Feldberg replied, "If this was the first course I played, I would have never played again." The point I'm trying to make is that the course was not designed for the Dave Feldbergs, so who really cares what he thinks.

[Three Putt]

Three Putt,

That's not a bad idea.. maybe I can put something together that would allow people to mark a course as "Recreational". Although what would be the criteria that would make a course recreational? That would probably have to be made more clear so people don't start marking all sorts of courses as recreational.

Then again, anybody coming to this site is probably looking for more substantial courses to begin with so bad reviews might be the way to go. I know I wouldn't want to travel to another state just to play a rec. course.I think the criteria for any reviews will always be subjective and a matter of personal opinion. Khao Pra finds Creve Coeur to be recreational. That's his opinion. I'd never call a course that will set up between 8,500 ft. and 10,200 ft. recreational, because at that length to me it is obvious that the course designer meant it to be challenging to a high-level player. Whether he was successful or not is what the rating is for.

Recreational to me covers a completely different kind of course. If I had to arbitrarily use something to define it, I'd make some sort of distance requirement like it has to average less than 300 ft. per hole to qualify. Not that a short course would automatically get this rating, but it would have to be short to get the recreational tag. That would toss a course like Creve Coeur out of the discussion, but keep a course like Sunset Hills in.

[timg]

Yea.. it is a tough distinction to make and probably an impossible one due to all the opinions surrounding the subject. As far as the ratings go, if a course is considered recreational but it's still fun to play I'd give it decent rating based on "fun factor". That's why the written review to share the reason behind a rating is so important. Without a decent written review, the score is kind of pointless.

Back to the topic, if distance is one of the key distinctions between Rec./Champ. courses, I can try to build a distance column into the course browser so you can sort courses by distance (assuming they've been entered into the site that is).

[Khao Pra]

i'm not hating on st louis, my original point and the one that you completely agreed with above is that watson trail is an inherently dangerous course design. how does that make it a recreational course?

i have played the chicago area, many many times. in fact i had the course record from the pro tees at west park for many years and have won quite a few tournaments in the indiana fall series. chicago is a harder place to set up golf just due to population density. st louis is spread out all over the place with a much smaller population and probably more varied terrain so the possibilities, as i've stated all along, for st louis to become a hot bed for disc golf play have always been there but the courses have not. i don't remember calling creve couer a recreational course, but i do recall saying it is boring. boring because i remember throwing the same shots over and over and over. i probably use 3 discs total for a round at CC.


i have to take serious issue however with your comment about what dave feldberg thinks. the man is a hard working touring professional who has played probably as many courses as i have. his opinion should count. is the watson trails course going to challenge him? no probably not but the golf course should teach all new and recreational players any of the skill sets necessary to advance to the white tees and who knows, maybe they can join us at the blues eventually.

since you are from the chicago area, i will point you to niles michigan and madeline bertrand county park disc golf course, a perfect example of what i would call a recreational disc golf course. not particularly challenging or suited for pros but one hell of a fun short course demonstrated by a huge crowd of people playing year round.

[Olorin]

[quote=Three Putt;571Recreational to me covers a completely different kind of course. If I had to arbitrarily use something to define it, I'd make some sort of distance requirement like it has to average less than 300 ft. per hole to qualify. Not that a short course would automatically get this rating, [/quote]

Under the Suggestions Forum I started a thread about "Course Levels" that applies to this discussion.

Here's a PDGA document to look at to further the discussion:
"PDGA Course Design Guidelines for Each Player Skill Level"
http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf

Lowe