Springwood Players Course extinct!

[ohtobediscing]

Missed the edit window.
I feel that if Buzz had acquiesced to the original suggestions for changes soon enough and had helped rectify those problems quickly, a lot of this angst would never have existed. But, that "wall of ego" thing....

 

[sloppydisc]

I went down to Burlington in the Spring and ended up playing Springwood a couple of times. Instead of focusing on my shots being decent, I spent more time trying NOT to throw into soccer fields, backyards, parking lots, and playgrounds. I ended up hitting a car and skipping 4 or 5 holes around the baseball fields because there were so many little kids around. If the park was empty, it would have been a different story but it seems like the park is packed every day.

Just my 2 cents on the course.

P.S. I threw one near the stream on hole 8 and nearly gave up on life after being attacked by your NC's crazy crazy prickers.

That about sums it all up nicely. Well done. :thmbup:

 

[moose-mdg]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=6343



take the road trip down to moore county ...i need some reviews...

 

[Mueltrain54]

I think the real lesson here is to let experienced course designers evaluate proposed properties and handle course design instead of crack-pot locals. I can think of a few recent instances in the NC area that should hammer home this point.

I don't know what it says about our dg community that they seem to be the most active in terms of proposing new courses and suggesting re-designs...

Come on triad park!

 

[DavidSauls]

I think the real lesson here is to let experienced course designers evaluate proposed properties and handle course design instead of crack-pot locals.

I agree with the sentiment, but it always makes me wonder: If design is limited to experienced designers, how does anyone ever get started and on the road to experience?

There isn't an established apprentice designer program to train them, nor a body to give them credentials. North Carolina may be different, but in many places there aren't enough courses going in train the next crop of designers.

Plus, of course, experienced designers often want to get paid, and the locals will do it for free---a key bargaining chip.

We've all seen the train wrecks, but I've also played some fine courses that were a designer's first effort---sometimes, his only effort.

 

[Puckstopper]

It's all about ego and willingness to listen if you're a first timer. I think many of us who have looked at Springwood can tell it's a bad place for a gold level course from pictures alone. Surely people brought this up to the designer, but he clearly pushed ahead. Since I don't know the area I can't say if there were better plots of land available or not, but this park appears to be one that would be better served by a shorter, easier, less risky course.

 

[hoppedup]

I've been out of the loop and haven't logged in here or played in a couple of months. Looking to get back out tomorrow. I'm playing Creekside with my pops in the a.m.

I'm thinking a round at Springwood around noon sounds good. I'd like to see what all the fuss is about. If anyone wants to join me, look for a bald-headed hack throwing all over the place at short distances.

 

[keltik]

Well I just found out that I'll be off on Friday so I'm game for checking this course out soon.

 

[cjdiscgolf]

There isn't an established apprentice designer program to train them, nor a body to give them credentials. North Carolina may be different, but in many places there aren't enough courses going in train the next crop of designers.

The PDGA has free resources in terms of Tournament Directors and State Coordinators. If a park doesn't want to use them, they are doomed from the start.

If you look at most bad or unsafe courses, they typically have one thing in common - a designer no one outside of the area has heard of.

 

[DavidSauls]

The PDGA has free resources in terms of Tournament Directors and State Coordinators. If a park doesn't want to use them, they are doomed from the start.

If you look at most bad or unsafe courses, they typically have one thing in common - a designer no one outside of the area has heard of.

Granted. And there's the Course Designers Group, trying to promote professional design, as well.

But there's the question as to whether the parks dept. ever comes across this info.

"Hi. I'd like to talk to you about adding disc golf to our park. It's the fastest growing sport in America, suitable for kids and families on up to top players. It'll cost very little to install and maintain. I've been playing for 30 years and have played hundreds of courses, and I'll be happy to design it for you for free. (And I'll make a Championship Course, which will draw tourist dollars.)"

That probably sounds pretty good to the parks department. With an experienced disc golfer handling it, maybe they don't look any further. Maybe they do, and find out there are professional designers who charge thousands of dollars, but decide they've already got a good deal.

 

[cjdiscgolf]

Granted. And there's the Course Designers Group, trying to promote professional design, as well.

But there's the question as to whether the parks dept. ever comes across this info.

"Hi. I'd like to talk to you about adding disc golf to our park. It's the fastest growing sport in America, suitable for kids and families on up to top players. It'll cost very little to install and maintain. I've been playing for 30 years and have played hundreds of courses, and I'll be happy to design it for you for free. (And I'll make a Championship Course, which will draw tourist dollars.)"

That probably sounds pretty good to the parks department. With an experienced disc golfer handling it, maybe they don't look any further. Maybe they do, and find out there are professional designers who charge thousands of dollars, but decide they've already got a good deal.

Then it's on the park system to vet that person.

If they choose not to, they get what they deserve.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Recommend that people refer their Park Dept to this PDGA document before proceeding with a course. It promotes checking into a potential designer's capabilities and resume with only a mention of the DGCD course designers group as one resource: Choosing a Course Designer

 

[BrotherDave]

For your bemusement, I present: Hole 3.

History This hole originally stretched around two immensely popular softball fields. Tees are elevated and the short, bermuda type grass of the ball fields are out of bounds (the greener grass in the pic below), limiting players to a winding fairway. Light poles are mandatories, forcing play to the right (away from ball fields). The last mando, combined with the last section of pines, makes a particularly difficult angle to approach and tight gap to hit.

Original Gold Tee (1007 ft par 5; effective length: 983 ft)

↑ This tee is currently used in BADG's redesign as new Blue tee, playing to a new basket location.

Original Blue Tee (827 ft par 5; effective length: 803 ft)

↑ This tee is to be removed.

Original White Tee (330 ft par 3; effective length: 309 ft)

↑ This tee was created on the walking track (sidewalk) and skips most of the conflicting softball areas. The short grass left of the mando (labeled OB in the pic) is fairly popular for softball players to warm up on however. Sharpe's redesign called for this to be Hole 3's White tee with a Blue tee established on the sidewalk a few feet left and back of this tee (basically the same gap, just a little tighter and longer a look).

Hole 3's new basket location:

↑ New Hole 3 plays to this basket from 3's original Gold tee and a new White tee to be built later. Note the relative distances between Hole 2 and Hole 3's Blue (old Gold) and new White tee:

The new White tee location is approximately 65-70' from Hole 2's basket. In both the original design and the BADG redesign, players backtrack from Hole 2 to Hole 3's tees. In Sharpe's out of vogue redesign, players hole out from hole 2 and walk a couple hundred feet to the tees on the sidewalk.

 

[Three Putt]

I just don't get this course at all. Hole #2 in that last picture; is that a for realz hole or a proposed hole? If there is actually enough room for a tunnel shot there, really the only option for another hole in that area is another tunnel shot. If you have a wooded area there where you actually can have a hole, why in God's name would you be fiddly farting around a softball field with mando lightpoles and a half-baked "the really green grass is OB" hole? You end up in the same place.

From the other pictures, I'd really have to question if there is room for holes in those woods. It looks pretty narrow. Hard to tell from the pictures, though. To mix it up I'd have been looking at a tee in the open shooting away from the ballfield up to a basket in the woods and then maybe a wooded hyzer shot to take advantage of the curve there. The curved wooded area looks deeper so that would be a better spot for a hole.

 

[Discette]

Recommend that people refer their Park Dept to this PDGA document before proceeding with a course. It promotes checking into a potential designer's capabilities and resume with only a mention of the DGCD course designers group as one resource: Choosing a Course Designer

Thank you for that link Chuck!

 

[Tenacious EJ]

The trees in the wooded area around 2, 3, and 4 were planted about 12 ft apart, and there is definitely a tunnel there. It is an original hole and nobody has any complaint with it. The white tee for 3 as it currently stands really isn't to be used- it has yet to be moved, but it will be. See the attachment.

 

[BrotherDave]

The trees in the wooded area around 2, 3, and 4 were planted about 12 ft apart, and there is definitely a tunnel there. It is an original hole and nobody has any complaint with it. The white tee for 3 as it currently stands really isn't to be used- it has yet to be moved, but it will be. See the attachment.

There isn't really a place to put tees for hole 3 and not be at least mildly stupid, original design or otherwise. You got to backtrack after holing out on 2 and unless a safety net/wall is built you'll have people looking over the shoulders for incoming discs on crowded (lol) days.

 

[reposado]

I just don't get this course at all. Hole #2 in that last picture; is that a for realz hole or a proposed hole? If there is actually enough room for a tunnel shot there, really the only option for another hole in that area is another tunnel shot. If you have a wooded area there where you actually can have a hole, why in God's name would you be fiddly farting around a softball field with mando lightpoles and a half-baked "the really green grass is OB" hole? You end up in the same place.

From the other pictures, I'd really have to question if there is room for holes in those woods. It looks pretty narrow. Hard to tell from the pictures, though. To mix it up I'd have been looking at a tee in the open shooting away from the ballfield up to a basket in the woods and then maybe a wooded hyzer shot to take advantage of the curve there. The curved wooded area looks deeper so that would be a better spot for a hole.

hole two is a legitimate hole. probably my favorite on the course. but the "tunnel" ends after 2s basket. the rest of the wooded section does not feature anything that could be considered a fairway

 

[grodney]

I don't get it. Why does everything have to be 300+ feet? What's wrong with something in the 180-250 range? If hole 2 is okay as reposado says, then isn't there any way to make a shorty for number 3 that isn't stupidly tight and isn't stupidly easy? Maybe a little turnover or flick along the woods that finishes 100 feet in? Can you take out a couple small trees if necessary?

 

[reposado]

I don't get it. Why does everything have to be 300+ feet? What's wrong with something in the 180-250 range? If hole 2 is okay as reposado says, then isn't there any way to make a shorty for number 3 that isn't stupidly tight and isn't stupidly easy? Maybe a little turnover or flick along the woods that finishes 100 feet in? Can you take out a couple small trees if necessary?

based on how it looked last time i saw it, no, not really. the section of woods is not very large. im not sure if they are going to allow tree removal, but even if they did try to carve another tunnel, i think the remaining woods, once leaving a little space in between the two basket and where the 3 tee could go, would be close to 100 feet. 2 uses all of the good woods section.