The Red Hawk reviews
1
0
aceman
Experience:
17.1 years
17 played
17 reviews
2+ years drive by
Reviewed:
Played on:Feb 24, 2008
Played the course:once
Pros:
very aesthetically pleasing,a true grip it and rip it course,nothing really hard if you have a cannon for an arm.
Cons:
GET THE CART! we walked it and that is the dumbest thing I have ever done,can you say loooong also watch for golf balls since you play right with the ball golfers.
Other Thoughts:
to long for me, throwing bombs on every single hole made my arm hurt for days.
6
0
Home of The Players Cup 2+ years drive by
Reviewed:
Played on:Jun 6, 2004
Played the course:never
Pros:
This course is located on a beautiful golf course. Much wildlife, including "the" red hawk, can be seen during a round.
Golf carts are available for rental.
Players have the opportunity to challenge themselves on the same layout the pros play each November during The Players Cup.
The course affords many risk-reward opportunities and puts a paramount on good course management in scoring well.
While it definitely rewards the power player, it is possible for the 300 ft. thrower to execute a well-conceived game plan and shoot under par. (The cash cut line for the Players Cup has been within 2 strokes of even par each year.)
Three sets of tees give a wide-variety of skill ranges a fun and challenging experience.
Golf carts are available for rental.
Players have the opportunity to challenge themselves on the same layout the pros play each November during The Players Cup.
The course affords many risk-reward opportunities and puts a paramount on good course management in scoring well.
While it definitely rewards the power player, it is possible for the 300 ft. thrower to execute a well-conceived game plan and shoot under par. (The cash cut line for the Players Cup has been within 2 strokes of even par each year.)
Three sets of tees give a wide-variety of skill ranges a fun and challenging experience.
Cons:
There's no question that the course is biased - in favor of the power player.
In order to play the course it is necessary to have and read the course legend. Many of the holes have unique OB situations, which can be confusing the first time one plays the course.
At present, the first hole runs down the side of the golf course driving range, making safety a concern.
There is a very long walk back from the 18th hole to the clubhouse for those that do not choose to rent a golf cart.
There is a long distance between holes 6-7 and 16-17.
In order to play the course it is necessary to have and read the course legend. Many of the holes have unique OB situations, which can be confusing the first time one plays the course.
At present, the first hole runs down the side of the golf course driving range, making safety a concern.
There is a very long walk back from the 18th hole to the clubhouse for those that do not choose to rent a golf cart.
There is a long distance between holes 6-7 and 16-17.
Other Thoughts:
A couple quick notes that pertain to all my course reviews:
I don't use a numerical "system" for coming up with a final rating, such as 20% for aesthetics, 20% for challenge, 30% for safety, and 50% for amenities, or the like, except for the fact that I automatically deduct .5 for all 9-hole courses. I've established a base "criteria" based on the fact that more courses will receive a 3 than any other rating. I've created my number standards by grouping "like calibre" courses together and then comparing them to other groups of courses.
A few things that do weigh heavily in my mind are ease of course navigation, degree of nasty schule, likelihood of losing discs, degree of on-course crime, property aesthetics, hole variety, and good score distribution for a standardized gold, blue, white, or red skill level.
Using the 1-5 scale with a "normal" distribution in mind, most courses will fall in the 2.5-3.5 range and nearly all courses will fall in the 2-4 range. I believe that we've yet to create a "5" disc golf course. With that in mind, my highest rating rating given thus far is a 4.5, given to Idlewild. I'll never give an "all par 3's" course higher than a 4 rating.
My reviews are not meant to hurt the feelings of any designers and/or clubs, but I honestly believe that some of our courses do more harm for the sport than good. These courses have received ratings in the 0-1 range.
I don't use a numerical "system" for coming up with a final rating, such as 20% for aesthetics, 20% for challenge, 30% for safety, and 50% for amenities, or the like, except for the fact that I automatically deduct .5 for all 9-hole courses. I've established a base "criteria" based on the fact that more courses will receive a 3 than any other rating. I've created my number standards by grouping "like calibre" courses together and then comparing them to other groups of courses.
A few things that do weigh heavily in my mind are ease of course navigation, degree of nasty schule, likelihood of losing discs, degree of on-course crime, property aesthetics, hole variety, and good score distribution for a standardized gold, blue, white, or red skill level.
Using the 1-5 scale with a "normal" distribution in mind, most courses will fall in the 2.5-3.5 range and nearly all courses will fall in the 2-4 range. I believe that we've yet to create a "5" disc golf course. With that in mind, my highest rating rating given thus far is a 4.5, given to Idlewild. I'll never give an "all par 3's" course higher than a 4 rating.
My reviews are not meant to hurt the feelings of any designers and/or clubs, but I honestly believe that some of our courses do more harm for the sport than good. These courses have received ratings in the 0-1 range.
