David:
I want to say that you would have to do more than more 2 tee pads if you wanted to move the course away from the play areas. You would need to move the holes out of the open field and holes 15-18 completely away from the play areas. But I see no need to do this. Many families have taken the time to purchase discs because they see the disc golf course and meet the players.
Huey:
2 teepads are troubled. You would need 2-3 new holes but you could easily add a hole in the front 13. Combine 6&7 as a par 4 then go out and back utilizing that neat valley and creek that is below9 &10, then eliminate the shorty 15 play 16, put a new tee in the woods for 17.
But whatever, in the end it is the responsibility of the club leadership and course designer/director to make those calls. We have to change or update courses for all sorts of reasons. Look at Hornets #4, Nevin #11,12,13,14 as examples. Change isnt always bad. 11-14 at Nevin is a great stretch of holes now. 3 years ago, not nearly as good. Sometimes holes just don't work out, like old #13 at Nevin where parked cars were being hit or old 14 which enticed players to throw over neighbors yards.
Stan:
Tom, I think you have forgotten some things. I contend there was no disagreement. This has nothing to do with the quality of the design of any hole, simply where those holes exist in relation to a very young public and the guardians of these young children.
Sam has absolutely agreed with me about the"iffyness" regarding the proximity of tee 15 there at the playground. You have been there at least once while Sam and I discussed the proximity of tee 15 to the playground. (I am a bit worried about tee 17 also out the near the playground and the parents in the car line waiting to pick up kids.) We all agreed that this created the potential for offending the "wrong person". If Sam has changed his mind and informed you that he doesn't think anything needs to be addressed then I stand corrected, or perhaps he agreed with me just to get me to shut up. When I pointed out a way that holes could be rerouted I wasn't telling you or Sam how to do it, I was pointing out that it could be done.
My point is that if a person with contacts high up the ladder in the park department or city government gets offended by someone uttering profanity after a bad tee shot and perhaps indulging in a beverage or something that projects a bad image, we could potentially lose the course. It has happened elsewhere in the states.
The topic I have raised is not regarding whether the specific "reroute" I suggested should be employed. The topic is should some kind of a reroute be employed. No complaints have been lodged at this point. The population is rising and the popularity of our sport is rising and with that so is the foot traffic on the course. When was the last time that you heard someone drop a loud "F" bomb without considering who was within earshot? When was the last time you saw someone with a beer or something around a parking lot or on the course?
Should we be worried enough to minimize our high profile there around the playground and the entrance to the school? I think so, and I have shared my thoughts. Sam and Tom and Ox and I and many others have invested so many hours to make this awesome course a reality. I wouldn't want to lose this course. That is my point. (now I am pointless)
Stan (replying to David):
I agree with a bit of your assessment. If we moved two, it would affect others. The field holes would not be affected. Read my post above to get a feel for what I am proposing, and why.
David:
The very reason you propose to move 15 and 17 I propose to move the field holes. I have been on the walkway with my kids many times, when a golfer has missed his drive and lost his cool. If the goal is to avoid the conflict and "hide" the possible bad habits, than you should consider all 4 holes by the playground and the 2 field holes.
RJ (replying to Kramer):
This.
Stan (replying to David):
Thanks for your perspective. I hear what you are saying, and it has merit. We have those kind of public contacts in most of our courses and in most of our courses we cannot get away from all public interaction. At Winget we do need those field holes to transition from 14 to the final holes and they do not put us center stage in the public eye like [15] and 17. The playground only 20 feet away from a tee and a pickup line at an elementary school very close to another tee strike me as being radioactive. I may be misguided, but my way of thinking says that we should mitigate this potential disaster.
The Ox:
Is there even one (public) course in Charlotte that doesn't have any fairways that interact with other park users ?
Maybe the answer is more signage at the beginning of the course warning of the future interaction with the school ?
Tom does a great job of keeping Winget in top shape, barely even a spot of trash on the entire course at any given time.
If the fallen tree truly needs to be removed, it will be.
Stan:
I agree Ox. Tom does a great job keeping it clean. The last time I played there I found 3 pieces of trash, just three!!!!
The type of people that concern me probably won't care about what signs say and I cringe a bit about putting up signs that imply that disc golfers should not do the things that we do not want them to do, especially around the kids. Kind of tips our hand.
The issue to me is not that we are in the public eye, but that on those two holes we are directly under the public's nose where parents are right there and we are under scrutiny as we walk up to the tee pad, while we are on the tee pad and until we leave the tee pad. In my mind this is an issue that the leaders should discuss, but ultimately, this is Sammy's baby and since he is one of those leaders he should make the call.
If he does choose to change something, count me in for labor.
