Beverly Park reviews
3
0
jake9429
Experience:
9.9 years
19 played
2 reviews
Don't make a special trip 2+ years drive by
Reviewed:
Updated:
Played on:Mar 30, 2016
Played the course:once
Pros:
-All nine baskets were present, but a tree has fallen and warped basket 1.
-good double layered chainstar baskets.
-Good view from hole 6
-With the map at the beginning of the course it relatively easy to follow.
-I feel like this would be a good course for beginners or anyone wanting to concentrate on form and placement (with little risk) over long distance shots.
-good double layered chainstar baskets.
-Good view from hole 6
-With the map at the beginning of the course it relatively easy to follow.
-I feel like this would be a good course for beginners or anyone wanting to concentrate on form and placement (with little risk) over long distance shots.
Cons:
-The course seems to have a large drainage problem. There was water on every fairway and near every basket, plus a number of the gravel/water tee pads were unusable.
-The course could benefit from some TLC. Possibly adding more wood chips or an alternative type of tee box could make huge strides for the course.
- Any moderately experienced player will find Beverly Park underwhelming, but great for a place to take new players (bring boots just in case)
-Holes 1-3 play normally but between holes 4-6 you have to walk up a hill with some of the most unique stairs I've ever seen. The upside to this is that the two best holes on the course play from the top and its a great change from the otherwise flat squishy ground.
-The walk from 6-7 is long, but if you're already there discing I don't really see it as a problem.
-Hole 9 plays a little too close to where people might be around for my LHBH.
-The course could benefit from some TLC. Possibly adding more wood chips or an alternative type of tee box could make huge strides for the course.
- Any moderately experienced player will find Beverly Park underwhelming, but great for a place to take new players (bring boots just in case)
-Holes 1-3 play normally but between holes 4-6 you have to walk up a hill with some of the most unique stairs I've ever seen. The upside to this is that the two best holes on the course play from the top and its a great change from the otherwise flat squishy ground.
-The walk from 6-7 is long, but if you're already there discing I don't really see it as a problem.
-Hole 9 plays a little too close to where people might be around for my LHBH.
Other Thoughts:
-Hole 6 is probably the most "fun".It's a "big" <300 ft shot down hill and it was easy to reach.
-Although this may not be a course you feel the need to play more than once if its DRY its worth a round.
-Although this may not be a course you feel the need to play more than once if its DRY its worth a round.
3
0
in the swamp 2+ years
Reviewed:
Played on:Apr 17, 2014
Played the course:once
Pros:
Aesthetic-- plays through walking trails and around and over (down) a sledding hill. Multiple risks of hitting pedestrians, be careful!!
Baskets-- all in good shape. nicely visible in the dense woods.
teesigns-- nice. cutouts of the hole shape, distance and hole number...
Baskets-- all in good shape. nicely visible in the dense woods.
teesigns-- nice. cutouts of the hole shape, distance and hole number...
Cons:
Routing and nav-- a nightmare even with the best layed plans. the next tee signs are not overly descriptive or helpful and the long walk after #6 is torture.
teepads-- or the lack thereof is depressing. the course holds a TREMENDOUS amount of water and putting in some sort of elevated teepads would be key to helping this course succeed.
Design-- playing twice from the top of the sledding hill is a bit redundant. I think #4 should/could play UP the hill instead and it would help immensely.
Water retention-- the front and back of this course were essentially underwater. the rest of the course (456) weren't bad.
teepads-- or the lack thereof is depressing. the course holds a TREMENDOUS amount of water and putting in some sort of elevated teepads would be key to helping this course succeed.
Design-- playing twice from the top of the sledding hill is a bit redundant. I think #4 should/could play UP the hill instead and it would help immensely.
Water retention-- the front and back of this course were essentially underwater. the rest of the course (456) weren't bad.
Other Thoughts:
this course is a nightmare from the word go...
It would benefit from a complete redesign.
It would benefit from a complete redesign.
