About 8 years ago, my business partner and the CEO of Whirld Sports, John Heaton, wrote down his thoughts regarding concerns and suggestions he had for the sport of disc golf. Interestingly enough, the hopes and aspirations of disc golfers back then are still the same hopes and aspirations that exist today. John�s approach to the status of the sport and its growth takes an angle that we have not seen much discussion on, so we decided to publish those thoughts in a 4 part series. I would like to invite you to take some time to read them. We are publishing them with the hope that they might stir up some discussion, and better yet, action from the disc golf community.

http://www.whirldsports.com/news

Jeff Kaufmann
Chief Operating Officer
Whirld Sports LLC

I think this greatly overestimates the effect of poorer quality courses on the growth of disc golf.

The first and obvious point is that disc golf has grown signficantly over the past 8 years, in spite of the courses.

Another would be that I suspect few players try the sport on their own, but are introduced to it by existing players. The lack of directional signs is very frustrating to us traveling players, but for first-timers, I doubt they notice. And after one or two rounds, they don't particularly needs the signs. (Searching for discs through briar patches and swamps might discourage them, though).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not writing in praise of poor courses. But since 8 years ago, newcomers searching for online information will encounter course directories with course ratings that could be a great help. Disc Golf Course Review is my favorite; the PDGA directory is trying; and it's easy to get an idea of your starter course is considered elite, terrible, or somewhere in between.

Note also that the PDGA did endeavor to evaluate courses based on a very comprehensive, mostly objective system. Not sure what became of it or if it's still available.

[RESUMED] There are also the practical efforts of the cost, in time and effort, involved in the PDGA rating courses, and whether it would be justified.

Two course examples:

One is a course that clearly fails on safety issues, and the directional signs are great. Always failed because fairways are so close; in the past year the parks department ran walking trails all through the course. Yet, the tournament there fills up (90) in 4 minutes. Clearly this course meets some needs of PDGA members, and restricting tournaments there would not. This course attracts many beginners, as well.

Another is a private course that fails on signage (because a guide is required for casual play), has one crossing fairway (never an issue except under tightly-controlled tournament play), has lots of nasty briars, but is rated as one of the state's top courses. Course standards would be of little use there as beginners don't use it, and the course is of value to the tournament players who do.

I
Note also that the PDGA did endeavor to evaluate courses based on a very comprehensive, mostly objective system. Not sure what became of it or if it's still available.

that sort of faded away under the weight of too much statistical analysis. Actually, it was NOT objective enough to survive. The calculations, formulae, and weighted responses were far too much for the needs.

Objectivity is different for everyone, though.