After reading other posts about this course, I can tell that there's some obvious controversy about BV. And I know, as a designer, its impossible to please everyone. That being said.
Question: Is this course meant to be played as all par 3's. (Like traditional disc golf courses) Because I found myself struggling (and getting extremely frustrated) to get most of those holes in 3's and 4's and no way I could ever 2 any of them. If most of those holes were par 4's or 5's, I could deffinately see myself enjoying the course more... But presently, I just get pissed at myself for not being able to get a single 2. And rarely a 3.
In my opinion, BV is obviously a beautiful site for a disc golf course or two. This much everyone agrees on. It also lends itself nicely to large tournament venues. (i.e. space for vendors etc...) The tee pads are creative and original, with plenty of room to manuever. The overall design is challenging but far from impossible. The biggest challenge I found was the overall distance of each hole (bare in mind when I played it, I was playing it as all par 3's). Which if the par for each hole was 4 or 5 then the distance is no longer an issue (at least not to me). There did seem to be a lot of hiking envolved, not only from tee pad to hole, but also from each hole to the following tee pad. Most courses the next tee pad is usually pretty close to the previous hole just played (with a few exceptions). I realize there was a lot of space to work with, but as a course design goes, was the space utilized effectively?
It seems that a lot of ego went into the design of this course and not much thought was given to the disc golf community as a whole. In other words, what percentage of disc golfers will enjoy playing this course on a regular basis? As nice as it is, will it ever put up the numbers Rosedale does? Probably not. Which disc golfers will make this their home course? Are the park/taxpayers receiving a good return on their investment (i.e. by increasing foot traffic and park usuage)? And does this course excite and encourage recreational or even intermediate players? As it stands, the course really only caters to the OPEN (and maybe a few advanced) players. How many OPEN players reside in the Jackson county area anyway? Enough to build a course with only them in mind? Or is it a case where the designers themselves happen to play somewhere in that arena.
I know when I've designed courses and hosted tournaments in the past, my first instinct was to try and cater to the OPEN players. After careful research, consideration, and communications with other clubs players (both amateur and pro), I found that the common consensus was to cater to the amateur players. With extended optional pin placements and tees for pro's. This seems to be the "mold" that works well. Now that I have played BV, I have a better working understanding of that concept, and why it exists.
In conclusion, as it stands, I think BV excludes a large percentage of players. While the design meets the needs of those who designed it. It does not appear to meet the needs of the larger number of people who will actually use the park. Why wasn't this a HUGE red flag for the park board? Aren't their concerns based on the betterment of the park for the totality of public usage? Or at least toward a larger number of people than just the few OPEN players that reside in the county.
When I look across that park I see huge potential, as I'm sure everyone does. I think two courses like Albert Oakland Park in Columbia, could easily happen there. Yes, this would shrink some of those monster holes. But on the upside, BV would gain a whole other course, and extend tournament possibilities. Making it easier for tournament directors to hold large events in one area, instead of sending contestants treking across the city to alternate parks.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the reasoning behind why it was designed the way it was. But when you weigh the needs of the many againts the needs of the few, aren't we supposed to lean toward the needs of the masses?
Just a thought.