Pros:
Southeast Park is a good addition to the Columbia disc golf scene. The course has tons of potential, there just needs to be some serious efforts on improving this layout in order for it to achieve that level.
- The course has some really good holes. It's clear this course should be amongst the best in this region, along with Stoney Hill and Crooked Creek.
- #13 is an example of what this course can be. This is a great long hole at 627 feet from the shorts, or 827, from the longs. Or 687 feet, according to the map. The fairway is wider for your tee shot, with some tall stuff to the right. Accuracy isn't crucial for your first shot. From there, the fairway gets narrower for your second and/or approach shots, at which point you want to be on the correct side of the fairway in order to reach the pin in an opening in the woods to the right. This is a perfectly executed, strategy-driven, classic hole layout. Unfortunately, it's one of the few that are this good.
- Solid mix of wooded and open holes. Holes range from 217 feet up three longer than 600 feet. The course is aimed to reach to a higher skill set, with very few 'easy' birdie chances.
- The course winds throughout the park. Yes, there's a way too much walking at times, from #5 to 6 and #13 to 14 (when you walk the entire length of the #6 plus some more), but you do get to take in some nice sights. And with the course being so spread out, you're pretty isolated from the rest of the park's activities.
- Course allows for a lot of chances to pull out the big drives. On a fair number of the wooded holes, the fairways are wide enough to allow you to be aggressive. You see this playing out on #4, 7 & 11.
Cons:
In too many ways, and on too many holes, it seems the execution came up just short. With so many holes having just a little something wrong with them, that's when problems and frustrations arise. Listing the hole problems:
- Hole #5 is the first of the close, but not quite right designs. It's a tight fairway off the tee to a widening fairway towards a basket back to the right. This is close to being a great hole, except for the fact the rough is way too thick and unforgiving. You're either on the fairway or you're really going to be searching. In a scenario like this, is it worth risking a lost disc or a lot of time searching for a disc for some extra distance? If the rough was scaled down, the risk/reward factor would be optimized.
- Hole #6 is a failure. In concept, this could be a fun, really good layout. Instead you get this. The hole throws over a dam, with water running the entire right side of the fairway. The problem is that there is NO fairway. The entire 'landing zone' and green area is rough. On any other course, and any other hole, if you landed in thick foliage as this, you would be in the rough. Here, you're in putting range. For anyone in the Columbia area, it reminded me of the 'green' area on hole #5 at Woodward Park in Camden.
- Hole #9 is another hole that's great in concept, but not in reality. It's a 219-foot, not-overly difficult, slightly downhill shot. The problem is that the basket is 15 - 20 feet from the water. If you go slightly long or to the right, your disc is probably lost. Look at the picture on this site. The one with the goose in the water. Notice how close the basket is to the edge. Why not move the basket further to the left, penalizing only bad shots? You shouldn't be losing a disc that's still within the 10m putting circle.
- #16 could be laid out better. It's another solid birdie chance, a 217-foot hole that starts in the open, and doglegs to the left. The problem is that the open 'fairway' is the park road. Solid concept for a hole, just move it away from the road.
- #17 & 18 are the same hole twice in a row. Both are 600 feet+ holes, starting in the woods, playing in an open field before ending in the woods again. Basically you walk one way across the field on #17, turn right back around to where you just were for #18. One hole like this would be ok. Still not ideal for a closing hole, but whatever. Having both like this seems like a wasted opportunity.
- The hole distances aren't consistent between the tee signs, online maps and hole info on this site. On certain holes, it's not a big deal because you can tell if a hole is 322 feet (or 325) or 493 feet, as is the case on #5. It's more of a frustration when the hole is reachable and the listed distances vary by 30 - 40 feet.
- Also, there was no consistency if the baskets were in the longs or shorts, or how they were marked. Some holes had a check mark next to the correct positions. Others did not.
Other Thoughts:
Southeast Park has so much potential, I think that's why I, and others, may be so frustrated. The holes I listed under the 'cons' section all could, and should, be good-to-great layouts. Imagine standing on #6, with a true fairway, and having to risk going for it or possibly losing the disc in the water. That's better than the current options of landing in the water, the thick rough 'fairway' or on the dam itself.
- I'd like to see the locals put more attention into this course, and take the input and advice from others to optimize its potential. I know Columbia has a solid disc golf club, so there's no reason to have problems linger. Being so close to three interstates, this course could get so much play by so many people passing by. Everyone from Ohio, and Quebec, drive right on by on their way to Florida. I know, I see all their cars on I-77 every day.
- The course has a lot of solid, if not spectacular, layouts. Take a hole like #8. It is 375 feet with a semi-wide fairway. The basket is protected by a huge tree, making for some potentially trick putts. And #15, is a 335 foot hole, with the fairway getting narrower at times, and opening back up close to the basket. A great shot will leave you in birdie range. A bad one will leave you with a bogey, or worse, on your scorecard.
- I think that my assessment of this course was tough but fair. Even with an extensive 'cons' section, this course is still slightly above average. Rather than settling for an underachieving 3.0, this course could be close to 4.0-level status if issues were addressed. Columbia, don't agree with my review? I'd love to hear from you locals and show me what I'm missing.
- I want to check this course out in the future, seeing how things have (hopefully) changed and improved. As it is, the course is a slightly better and newer version of Owens.