Roy G opened today

[zj1002]

I don't understand why you have an issue with me to begin with. You don't live in Austin. You haven't played the course(I assume).

I could care less what a course is rated on DGCR. It's all arbitrary crap.

It just seems crazy to me that walking 1000ft is an issue for some. They used the closest parking lot available. The land between the course and parking lot is a creek that runs into our town lake(river). There is nothing they could do to make the course closer to the parking lot. This course was built to replace the infamous Pease park which closed due to erosion amd environmental issues. The course designer would be foolish to repeat the past and have the golfers cross the creek any more than was necessary for entry/exit or else risk more erosion concerns.

The course was approved as 100% Eco-friendly by the city. That was the point of the course, to show cities everywhere that a properly built course can be sustainable and have a reduced eco impact.

Now is walking 1000ft so bad when you have the whole story?

If there is a course I will play it. If I have to walk a mile in/out it won't bother me. I play disc golf, and a round by itself is enough joy to not make me complain about walking

 

[slicemaster]

I do find in pretty interesting that people who haven't stepped foot on the course feel they know how one aspect of its design affect how great it is. Personally I wouldn't comment on a place I had never been simply to be contrarian.

To each his own I suppose.....

 

[Sunday Mike]

I don't understand why you have an issue with me to begin with. You don't live in Austin. You haven't played the course(I assume).

I could care less what a course is rated on DGCR. It's all arbitrary crap.

It just seems crazy to me that walking 1000ft is an issue for some. They used the closest parking lot available. The land between the course and parking lot is a creek that runs into our town lake(river). There is nothing they could do to make the course closer to the parking lot. This course was built to replace the infamous Pease park which closed due to erosion amd environmental issues. The course designer would be foolish to repeat the past and have the golfers cross the creek any more than was necessary for entry/exit or else risk more erosion concerns.

The course was approved as 100% Eco-friendly by the city. That was the point of the course, to show cities everywhere that a properly built course can be sustainable and have a reduced eco impact.

Now is walking 1000ft so bad when you have the whole story?

If there is a course I will play it. If I have to walk a mile in/out it won't bother me. I play disc golf, and a round by itself is enough joy to not make me complain about walking

No I have not played the course...but I know Austin well. Great town, btw.
I never said walking 100ft was bad. I just said I would knock off .5 for not having the course loop back to a parking lot. I never called it a bad course, or said I wouldn't play it. I said it was a con. My opinion, it's how I feel. I've read all the reviews and other people also mention it as a con w/ the course. So apparently I am not alone in my opinion of course design.
My real issue is you slinging insults because you didn't like what I said about your course.
Weak sauce on your part.

 

[Sunday Mike]

I do find in pretty interesting that people who haven't stepped foot on the course feel they know how one aspect of its design affect how great it is. Personally I wouldn't comment on a place I had never been simply to be contrarian.

To each his own I suppose.....

Have you ever read anything on this site before?

 

[Chain Wrangler]

I hope to get there soon and meet up with some of my Austin peps and play =)

 

[sidewinding]

I think Sunday Mike had a valid point in his original post. He was saying how can you still give a course a 5 disc rating if you mention a con like a long walk back to the car. All I can say to answer that it that this courses pros make it a > 5 disc rated course so that when you take away the few cons then it brings it back down to a 5. That's how I feel about it.

 

[zj1002]

Man read what I wrote. The walk is there for environmental reasons

The folks who built the course had to fight for the land. This is an 18 hole course. If they make 2 9 holes loops it limits the course and also adds another crossing point.

And yeah I stand by what I said, and I would say it to anyone's face. Stop being lazy. Be proud of what they accomplished at Roy G. It is meant to set a new standard and cause change in design procedures regarding sustainability. Almost every other course in Austin is built on a creek and the ones with close parking lots and "9 hole loops" have had major erosion issues because of all the people that cross back over creeks in unprotected areas.

So please change your view of what a properly built course is before you rate a new one again. Austin, and spefically Mike Olse, is determined to design sustainable courses. Sometimes that means they can't cater to lazy people who have an issue with walking to their car

The majority of the reviews you have read are from folks who have only played it once, hence the walk is probably a shock to them after a long round. I can garauntee you if there was a sign at the course explaining the reason for the walk there would be no complaints but rather cheers.

 

[Sunday Mike]

Man read what I wrote. The walk is there for environmental reasons

The folks who built the course had to fight for the land. This is an 18 hole course. If they make 2 9 holes loops it limits the course and also adds another crossing point.

And yeah I stand by what I said, and I would say it to anyone's face. Stop being lazy. Be proud of what they accomplished at Roy G. It is meant to set a new standard and cause change in design procedures regarding sustainability. Almost every other course in Austin is built on a creek and the ones with close parking lots and "9 hole loops" have had major erosion issues because of all the people that cross back over creeks in unprotected areas.

So please change your view of what a properly built course is before you rate a new one again. Austin, and spefically Mike Olse, is determined to design sustainable courses. Sometimes that means they can't cater to lazy people who have an issue with walking to their car

The majority of the reviews you have read are from folks who have only played it once, hence the walk is probably a shock to them after a long round. I can garauntee you if there was a sign at the course explaining the reason for the walk there would be no complaints but rather cheers.

OK now you are just being a dick.
I've had four knee surgeries--2 in each knee and have arthritis in each knee. Yes I can walk. I drag my ass around The Ridge ALOT, and it hurts every phuqing time. But I do it because I love the game. But it means that the extra walk to or from a course is a con to me. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy a course, it just means the extra walking hurts.
So quit being such a dick. Your opinion is not the only one that matters.
I would say "Stay classy Austin", again, but I see that just ain't gonna happen.

 

[sidewinding]

Just because there is an environmental reason for something does not mean you can't see it as a con. Northtown can't have concrete tees because LCRA says it's too close to a recharche zone so they have really crappy crushed granite tees. Is that not a con?

 

[Sunday Mike]

I think Sunday Mike had a valid point in his original post. He was saying how can you still give a course a 5 disc rating if you mention a con like a long walk back to the car. All I can say to answer that it that this courses pros make it a > 5 disc rated course so that when you take away the few cons then it brings it back down to a 5. That's how I feel about it.

A reasonal rebuttal without being a dick.
Stay Classy Austin.

 

[denny ritner]

The course is great. By no means is the fact that there's a long walk back after hole 18 a major flaw, but it's worth mentioning in my opinion. It is a fact. Readers will take all the facts given in reviews into consideration and draw their own conclusions, based on what's important to them as individuals.

It's apparent that you, as an individual, don't think that it matters to have a long walk back to the parking lot. Good for you. Does it someone how hurt you that others do? Does it somehow diminish your enjoyment of playing the course that people have mentioned a little fact in their reviews?

It's crazy how there is so much pressure on reviewers on this site to inflate ratings to keep locals' fragile egos from getting bruised. Readers are big boys and girls. They can take in all the information and draw their own conclusions.

Sugar coating reviews to get more thumbs ups only makes it easier for courses to stay mediocre. Don't get me wrong, John and Mike are among the best of the best, but their courses aren't perfect. As a designer, I want to get feedback on my work. Many comments I'll brush off as "that's a difference of opinion", but there will inevitably be some that I think "yep, there might be something to that, I'll have to give that some thought".

 

[sidewinding]

What if the city had said ok we don't want you guys destroying any more trees so we're going to give you a very open piece of property and all you could do was put 13 holes that were all less than 250'. Would that still have to be a perfect course just because it was environmentally friendly?

 

[zj1002]

I am not being a dick. These are words on the Internet

I'm telling you why certain things are done on courses

There should be a separate rating for environmentally friendly courses so that folks understand how important it is. Disc Golf is more sustainable that traditional golf. We need not ruin our chance to show how friendly(and cheap) the sport is

 

[zj1002]

I've said before that I don't care about ratings. It's an arbitrary system on a website. Im not writing this much to boost Roy G ratings. I want you to understand how important Roy G is to the future of disc golf design

 

[Sunday Mike]

I am not being a dick. These are words on the Internet

I'm telling you why certain things are done on courses

There should be a separate rating for environmentally friendly courses so that folks understand how important it is. Disc Golf is more sustainable that traditional golf. We need not ruin our chance to show how friendly(and cheap) the sport is

Nice job showing the "friendliness" of disc golf. Insulting someone because they don't happen to view disc golf courses the same way you do.

 

[Sunday Mike]

The course is great. By no means is the fact that there's a long walk back after hole 18 a major flaw, but it's worth mentioning in my opinion. It is a fact. Readers will take all the facts given in reviews into consideration and draw their own conclusions, based on what's important to them as individuals.

Word.

 

[denny ritner]

Just because there is an environmental reason for something does not mean you can't see it as a con. Northtown can't have concrete tees because LCRA says it's too close to a recharche zone so they have really crappy crushed granite tees. Is that not a con?

^^^ this is a huge point. a con is a con, it doesn't matter WHY. for example, met center doesn't have two loops of nine holes, because it CAN'T be done on that property. it's still a con. a little baby con. nothing that i'd take points off for. nothing that would keep me from playing the course, but worth mentioning.

and btw, i'm an environmental engineer, and it drives me nutty when there are blanket ridiculous rules that prohibit covering .17% of the pervious area on a course with cement.

5' x 12' pads = 60 sf per pad
18 holes x 2 pads per hole = 36 pads
60 x 36 = 2,160 sf of cement
30 acre course
43,560 sf per acre
30 x 43,560 = 1,306,800 total sf per course
2,160 / 1,306,800 = .17%

 

[zj1002]

Stop trolling man

I never insulted you. I made a comment about being fat on the Internet. Get over it

Come down to Roy G. I'll give you the grand tour

I understand folks don't like the walk.

 

[zj1002]

Denny, I understand. I think I came off a bit wrong because my posts were pointed at SundayMike directly

Cons exist on every course. Its rare to have the land and resources to create the perfect course. Austin was lucky to get Roy G. I am biased because of my connection to Austin. I dont see the lack of 9 hole loops as as a set back. I don't see a walk as an issue. I am different in those regards, but I see why others feel the way they do

I see a teebox and a basket, and i want disc golf. I don't see cons, I see my passion. I see any area with a basket and I'm happy. There is no need to attach a con to it with something so trivial as walking

 

[Sunday Mike]

^^^ this is a huge point. a con is a con, it doesn't matter WHY. for example, met center doesn't have two loops of nine holes, because it CAN'T be done on that property. it's still a con. a little baby con. nothing that i'd take points off for. nothing that would keep me from playing the course, but worth mentioning.

and btw, i'm an environmental engineer, and it drives me nutty when there are blanket ridiculous rules that prohibit covering .17% of the pervious area on a course with cement.

5' x 12' pads = 60 sf per pad
18 holes x 2 pads per hole = 36 pads
60 x 36 = 2,160 sf of cement
30 acre course
43,560 sf per acre
30 x 43,560 = 1,306,800 total sf per course
2,160 / 1,306,800 = .17%

It's too early for that much math.