Pros:
Ellis Park has a few flashes of enjoyment with some decent holes. But they are overshadowed by the majority of holes that are below average.
- This review will focus on the newer 9-hole layout - holes #7 - 15 - that are across the street. For a complete recap of the original layout - holes #1 -6 & 16 - 18 - check out my review for old course layout.
- The first two holes across the street (#7 & 8) are poor. To my surprise, five of the next 6 holes were all relatively enjoyable, even featuring one really solid layout.
- #12 is hands down the best hole, and the only one that's truly an above level/advanced layout. It's a 440 foot, mostly open hole. There can be a debate about whether this is an easy par 4 or a really challenging par 3. You can safely throw a driver here, setting up a short to mid-range second shot. Two good shots will get you in putting range for your 3.
- In addition, I enjoyed holes #9 - 11 and 14. #9 is a good mid-range slightly uphill shot. #10 is a fun, 210 foot uphill shot with a narrow fairway, forcing you to shoot the gap. #11 is a downhill, 250 foot hole with a big tree blocking the right side and all high shots. A left-to-right throw will get you in birdie range. #14 is another tight, uphill hole. It's only 170 feet, so a putter or mid-range that you can throw straight will set you up nicely. I even enjoyed the concept of what's trying to be accomplished with 13 & 15. A lot of maintenance and/or relocating the tees will be needed. At least the concept of a decent hole is present here, more so with #13 than 15.
- There are enough birdie and or ace runs on this course that allow you to be aggressive. The problem goes back to the idea that the easy holes are seemingly too easy (or not challenging/boring), while the harder holes are either horrible layouts or ridiculously challenging, or unfair.
- Totally random sighting. To the left of #11 is a really nice looking horse riding arena and tower. Much of the park has been neglected - check out condition of the tennis courts if you need proof - yet somehow, there's an awesome looking ring for equestrian events. Go figure.
Cons:
This is, for the most part, an uninspiring and uncreative, layout. It's very clear that there wasn't much input from disc golfers, or at least ones with course designing experience. The original 9 has its problems with atrocious layouts, and so does the 9 across the way. #7, 8, 13 & 15 have fairways that aren't much wider than a walking path. And actually, #13's fairway is a walking path down a hill. Narrow fairways are acceptable on a shorter hole (see #10 & 14), but not so much when the hole is 445 feet, as is #7. On that hole, you can either throw mid-range or putter, and sacrifice distance, or spend lots of time searching for discs in the woods. Even then, a shot slightly off-line, by only a couple feet, and you're in the woods.
- As bad as that is, I'd rather end up several feet into the woods, than have a shot sail deep into the kudzu, as is the case with #8. If there weren't kudzu, this hole layout might actually be fun. As it is, this is a dogleg right that will pretty much devour a disc if doesn't go right. If your disc sails straight, that kudzu is deep and thick. Who knows what else is in there, if you throw a disc in that stuff. Just glad I didn't have to find out.
- As much as I spoke (somewhat) kindly of the better holes above, if this were a good, above average course, most would quickly become some of the worst on a course of that quality. It's only by comparison do some of those holes seem good.
- There's just not a lot of flash here. Even during the four-hole stretch from #9 - 12, the stretch I called the best set of holes, I wasn't wowed. It was more of a sense that 'this isn't bad.' There aren't too many marketing slogans that center around the theme of a product not being too bad.
- Depending on other activities at the park, there will be times when parts of the course will be unplayable. It can range from ball games taking place, or something as simple as people playing horseshoes, with the pits being part of the fairway on #17.
Other Thoughts:
I'm glad I played the complete 18 at Ellis Park. Now I know I didn't miss anything when the extra 9 holes were added.
- The standard verbiage of a course's front 9 and back 9 are somewhat different here. I referred to the original and new(er) 9 depending on what side of the road they were on. For many, I suspect the front 9 will be holes #1 - 6 & 16 - 18; with the back nine being holes #7 - 15 across the street.
- This course just feels neglected and depressing. It's less than 10 minutes from being in busy parts of Salisbury, but it's one of the most rural feeling courses of anywhere I've played. It's eerie playing on a weekend afternoon, and not hearing any sounds, whether it's cars, planes, birds, whatever.
- There are plenty of good practice holes here. There are also holes that have too much of a 'lost disc' element for a beginner/casual level targeted audience. If you plan accordingly, and live nearby, you can be efficient with your time here.
- I was overly generous with my 1.0 rating for the original 9. That layout was closer to a 0.75. The new layout would be in the ballpark of 1.25 - 1.5. Add them together, and you get a 1.0. At best, and with some work and redesigned holes, I could see this approaching a 2.0.
- As it is, anyone rating this course above average (meaning the five 3.0 ratings) needs to travel outside Salisbury to play disc golf. No way can someone try to convince others that this course is above average.
- I played the original layout once in 2011. Now, I played the entire 18-hole layout in 2014. Barring something unexpected, this will be my one and only visit to the course.