- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,854
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
First off you are only refering to some of the courses in CA there are quite alot where you would have to go a long ways off of that route that you planed out, there is no way you could do it in 2500 miles not by a long shot. Second your talking the diffrence between driving straight across flat deserts to driving curvy roads through mountains, it will make a big diffrence in the amount of time that it takes to drive it. I will take into account that the I-5 is alot like driving in TX, but the rest of CA is much diffrent. Besides who realy wants to go play a bunch of over rated TX courses, not me. Need proof that they are over rated take a look at this one. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=933 Flat, repetitive, poor teepads and signs, poor design and yet there are still Texans giving it 3.5's and even a 4.
p.s. Flame on!
opcorn:
But the question isn't courses you'd want to play - it's about the total number of courses and state size.
Texas - 269
California - 212
Texas land area - 261,797.12 sq. miles
California land area - 155,959.34 sq. miles
The difference - Texas has 57 more courses and 105837.78 more sq. miles of land.
You can argue for Cali all day long and it comes closes in a few regards, but Texas still wins this argument.
But you arn't counting hills in that calculation of land area. Texas is flat so you could just measure length by width. If you took and flatened out CA it would be WAY bigger than TX.
Are you being serious right now?
If that's the case, then we need to throw Colorado into the mix too, because there are huge number of their 114 courses are mountain courses that keep you on the twisting backroads most of the time. I dare say more than California or Texas in total area if that is your measurement.
And heck at 103,000 square miles - Colorado is closer to California in the difference of land area than California is to Texas.
I'd rather watch paint dry than try to hit every course in Texas. The courses are about boring as the drive.
Well, I see this had devolved into the usual my place is better than your place wang measuring thread, with the important criteria being things that have nothing to do with disc golf.
I think I have most courses in Europe.
But you're arguing about large land masses that involve entire states, not the more localized topography that would be suitable for a park. Disc golf courses don't encompass the thousands of square miles of land you guys are arguing about. You can easily make a killer course with less than 100 acres, and I don't know of a state in the entire country that doesn't have small pockets of land that could conceivably accommodate that. (Now whether a course exists on such land is another matter).I think these things do have to do with disc golf. Great disc golf can't be played on flat ground. You need hills in my opinion to make truly good disc golf.
I think these things do have to do with disc golf. Great disc golf can't be played on flat ground. You need hills in my opinion to make truly good disc golf.
...But I'm realy just having fun messing with the Texans. They get butt hurt soo easy.
But you're arguing about large land masses that involve entire states, not the more localized topography that would be suitable for a park. Disc golf courses don't encompass the thousands of square miles of land you guys are arguing about. You can easily make a killer course with less than 100 acres, and I don't know of a state in the entire country that doesn't have small pockets of land that could conceivably accommodate that. (Now whether a course exists on such land is another matter).
Even in the supposedly flat middle of the country, there are pockets of elevation. Seriously, go to the hill country of central Texas, and tell everyone how flat the state is.
I'm actually from Wyoming, I just live in Texas. I just like to call it as I see it.
Here's something I did a few months ago for anyone who wanted to play all the courses in MN in one trip.
But you're arguing about large land masses that involve entire states, not the more localized topography that would be suitable for a park. Disc golf courses don't encompass the thousands of square miles of land you guys are arguing about. You can easily make a killer course with less than 100 acres, and I don't know of a state in the entire country that doesn't have small pockets of land that could conceivably accommodate that. (Now whether a course exists on such land is another matter).
Even in the supposedly flat middle of the country, there are pockets of elevation. Seriously, go to the hill country of central Texas, and tell everyone how flat the state is.