Who is the man for the job???
Who is the man for the job???
24- I was involved last time, I vote for everyone else but me! :)
I do vote we go sideways across the hill this time!
:lol: I didn't vote for myself :lol: so who ? :wink:
I don't know most of those people but it seems like 2 or 3 people should work together to redesign the course. With one person, their ideas aren't challenged and it's easy to get into one track of thinking without exploring all options. With a few people, sure they'll have different opinions on things, but they can work together to see which ideas work best and ultimately, I think we'll end up with a better course :!:
I thought to add team effort as an option, but someone cast a vote before I could go back and edit the poll. sorry
Yeah, I think team effort is the answer.
Course design is something that everyone wants to do, but there is no way that everybody can do it. When it does come time to do design work, it should definitely be done by multiple people, it's just how do you decide who those people should be. My suggestion is to have a team of three people, at least one of whom is rated lower than 900 and one of whom is a certified PDGA course designer. To be eligible to be on the design team, people will have to be nominated and seconded. Then we'll vote. The top vote getters will be the design team. Depending on the course site, the design team will develop a few possible layouts, and then we'll let the entire club membership vote which design to build.
Before the design team does their work, we'll adopt a set of design principles for them to follow. The PDGA, Innova, and the DGF have some great documents on the web about course design.
If everyone takes this seriously I would definetly like to be one of the three...Steve Simpson would be a prime candidate as well.
Here's how we did it in 1991. I had three guys and myself working together to redesign IQ. We really got into options like #13 where it is now to discourage amateurs from throwing over the the lake to #14. We figured out ways to make the holes more challenging without spending cash. A great example is hole #9, we moved it to the right about 8 feet. That gave a peek at the route we use now, prior to that it was a roller/ turnover hole.
So when we were done, we advertised the heck out of a meeting to show the new pin placements and absorb any criticism. It was also advertised as the one and ONLY time you could b-tch about the design. Everybody showed up, we walked the course showed what we had planned. Everyone was happy, few weeks later we planted the new baskets as you see them.
Steve Simpson would be great to redesign Iroquois. Whoever voted for me, if I were to redesign IQ, every hole would be in a treeless field 450 plus feet from the tee. lol
I voted for myself so i'd get a vote...lol..but if i were chosen there would be no less than 5 people walking talking , pitching ideas , rebuttles. alterations, until we all came to agreement on every hole...I think there should always be a course by committe...ALWAYS...land is too precious to waste on a terrible layout.Palmyra, though isn't permanent per say had little thought or little experience by the creator...no offense they may have been the person who got it going and did at least leave room for alterations...kudos for get'n it in...just using that as an example.as what can happen.
I for 1 would love to see a change and would love to be part of a committe that did it...I have little doubt that I have played twice as many rounds there as the next closest..no way of proving it but I'm pretty sure!..Pretty burnt out on it. Glad its been there over the years, but ready for a change...Oh and by the way Brandon, and you know I love ya, if Steve says Ed Headrick was involved in the design then I'm going with that...pretty sure you were still smurfing yellow when that went down...LMAO :wink: :wink: