Walking review for Palouse Ridge posted

[Sean_A]

Jordan

I haven't read the review, but I did a few for Rob.  Garland is right, the focus is slightly different and thus the summary of the review is different.  If a course scores poorly in the walking category it will struggle to have a good overall score. 

Ciao

[Norbert P]

  
   " Please note that since greens fees include a cart at peak times, any walker is forced to pay for a cart that he or she will not use." Garland B.

  No Garland --  it's complimentary.  Like the toy surprise in Cracker Jack.



If there's one phrase I hate to hear spewed, it's the term "complimentary carts" while they wear a smarmy smile.  It's one thing that Barona Creek has that kills my total infatuation for the place. It's walkable but like Pal Ridge they don't cater to the walker, which is a shame because it wouldn't take much; a shift in attitudes, even.  Langdon Farms was the same way when I played it several years ago.  If a place isn't going to allow me to choose, by charging me for the %^&* cart regardless, then I question their golf souls.

Garland, I commend you for the review and can hear the frustration in your words as I know the "disappointment" from wanting and expecting to like a golf course; e.g. Torrey Pines South.   My issues with PR are more construction oriented but obviously that's not the focus of TWG.com reviews.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Slag,
The only time you must pay for a 'complimentary cart'  at PR is on the weekend. All other times you do not have to pay for a cart that you do not use.

This doesn't help you, me, or Garland, but faculty, staff, students and employees of the university do get a walking rate on the weekends.

At no time are you required to take a cart to play this course.

Garland or Robb should do a bit of checking with these clubs before posting incomplete info. At least they should post a link to the facilities website, if one exists.   

[Garland Bayley]

...

Garland, or Robb, should do a bit of checking with these clubs before posting incomplete info. At least they should post a link to the facilities website, if one exists.   

So suit me if someone that can find my review of Palouse Ridge on TheWalkingGolfer.com, cannot find the Palouse Ridge website on their own.
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,

Was that 'suit me' or 'shoot me' ?     

You write a review, you should get the 'hard' information correct. Someone reading your words would have initially thought that A) the golf course cost $89.00 to play, and  B) the reader would still think that management forces players to pay for carts even if they don't use one. Has that gaffe been corrected yet?

Providing a link at least gives someone an easy way to check on some of the objective points of a review.   

[Garland Bayley]

...
You write a review, you should get the 'hard' information correct. Someone reading your words would have initially thought that A) the golf course cost $89.00 to play, and  B) the reader would still think that management forces players to pay for carts even if they don't use one. Has that gaffe been corrected yet?
...

I updated the pricing to reflect the range which is what I normally do for reviews that I put on the site.

Someone interested in playing the course can check the PR homepage for specifics.

[Jim_Kennedy]

As it still shows, your info is wrong or incomplete and so is Robb's.

[Garland Bayley]

As it still shows, your info is wrong and so is Robb's.

If you are saying he doesn't post the entire rate schedule you are right.
If you are saying he has the non-resident info wrong, it would seem you are wrong.
Or perhaps you are saying he doesn't label it non-resident.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Call the club and ask them about their cart policy. It doesn't jive with your remark- "Please note that since greens fees include a cart at peak times, any walker is forced to pay for a cart that he or she will not use"- except on the weekend.

.....and Robb's '39 to 89 cart included' isn't exactly correct either.


Reviews can have a negative or positive effect on a course, at least get the hard facts correct or don't speak to them.

[Garland Bayley]

Call the club and ask them about their cart policy. It doesn't jive with your remark- "Please note that since greens fees include a cart at peak times, any walker is forced to pay for a cart that he or she will not use"- except on the weekend.

Sorry Jim, I overlooked that part. I will ask Rob to clarify.

[Rob Rigg]

Updates have been made on pricing and a link has been added - for those who could not type www.palouseridge.com into their computer.

Garland clearly stipulates that his review will be focused on the lack of walkability, and not the course itself, so I have no issue with how it is presented and posted.

If, at some point, one of the Society members wants to do a full write up with photos and discussion of each hole, then that is fine. If you look around the site it becomes pretty apparent that aside from Tetherow, which is a course that I do not mind walking, any "Red" or "Carts Only" course gets a very short review if anything at all.

While the site is not about promoting anything having to do with cart golf, I do agree that pricing info - if posted - should be accurate.

Next time I would probably lean towards not even posting pricing info - if someone really wants to play the course then they can go to the PR website.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Updates have been made on pricing and a link has been added - for those who could not type www.palouseridge.com into their computer". -Rob Rigg

Stay out of the retail business. 

[Rob Rigg]

Jim,

Good point.

You only make it easier for a consumer to find something that you are trying to support or sell by posting a link.

What about PR would lead me to encourage others to play there?

Link removed.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Updates have been made on pricing and a link has been added - for those who could not type www.palouseridge.com into their computer". -Rob Rigg


Rob,

You misunderstood my post Rob. The reason you should stay away from retail is your petulance, now made more obvious by removing the link to PR.


 

[John Mayhugh]

Jim,
It seems that you are at odds with the the either the purpose of Rob's website or the people involved.  I did not see the original review, but Rob has conceded that it would be best to just leave off pricing.  It sounds like what Garland wrote about the fee structure could have been misunderstood, but that doesn't mean he or Rob was trying to mislead anyone.  I think Garland reported what he paid and the conditions associated with it (cart included at peak times).

I encourage you to take a look at all of the course reviews on GCA and see how many of those included website addresses.  This supposed shortcoming of Garland's review is pretty widespread.  I can understand why Rob responded to you the way that he did.

Most of us realize that any sort of review is personal opinion.  I appreciate the frankness of what Garland wrote, but if I played the course I might come away with a different opinion.  That doesn't mean what he wrote was wrong.

For what it's worth, I'm not in the anti-cart camp.  I prefer to walk, but it takes a better man than me to spend a summer in Kentucky and not ride sometimes.

[Rob Rigg]

"Updates have been made on pricing and a link has been added - for those who could not type www.palouseridge.com into their computer". -Rob Rigg


Rob,

You misunderstood my post Rob. The reason you should stay away from retail is your petulance, now made more obvious by removing the link to PR.


 

Jim,


Clearly I did not misunderstand your post at all.

Thanks for your advice about staying out of retail but I am doing just fine in it.

I also appreciate your comment about my "petulance" - nice word choice, you must be feeling pretty high and mighty today.

You seem to be lacking in basic Web 101 Business fundamentals because you do not seem to understand that The Walking Golfer.com has a right to promote or pan whatever courses the Society members see fit to rate and review. A link from TWG.com to another site is valuable and a course that does not fit in with what our site is promoting would be ridiculously fortunate to receive a link that would drive traffic in its direction.

If a course is walking friendly then it will certainly have a link - but why should a course that is not?

If people have questions about Palouse Ridge then they can type it into Google or go to the course website - I am sure they know how to do so per my original comment.

I would rather they visit Indian Canyon, Wine Valley, or another course in that part of the world that is more friendly to walkers.

Good luck with your website.

[Norbert P]

Jim, in the spirit of journalistic integrity, if you quote someone but create boldness in the font for effect, please let the reader know that the emphasis was yours. It removes the implication that the anger was from the original writer and not inherent thereof, but was that of the person quoting.  

[Jordan Wall]

Garland,

Frankly, with property Harbottle had to work with, I think the course is plenty walkable.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as I can understand how you might see it differently.

However, I don't think that there aare any walkability issues that deteriorate from the quality of the course.

[Jim_Kennedy]

John,
Garland and I have no problem, I didn't question his opinion of the course or give the impression that I thought he was purposely misleading anyone. He had the wrong information and he realized it, but all you have to do is read the tangent that Slag went off on to see the effects of misleading information. Walking is allowed anytime and you pay for a cart only on the weekends whether you use it or not.

Slag,
I used bold to highlight the section of the quote I thought was the most important. I guess someone could look back a couple of posts and see that the original had no bold, but like Garland, I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.


Rob,
I'm glad you realize that your remark, ..."for those who could not type www.palouseridge.com into their computer' was peevish in nature, but it's still rather childish of you to take it out on the golf course. Behavior like that surely diminishes your site, nothing else.

[Norbert P]

 I don't mean to speak for Garland, but I read his report and what struck me was his frustration for the management practice of not appreciating that some golfers walk courses.  It can be an infuriating endeavor when walkers are constantly cast as "sticks in the spokes" of the cartball machine.  

  Why are carts "complimentary" only on "peak times"? I would assume that walkers cut into revenue.  Well, should the walker be inconvenienced by only coming to play on slow days?  From my experience, golf courses are only slower walked when the golf course is not designed for walkers.   Now, Palouse Ridge is a fine golf course and one that its regulars should be proud of but if somebody speaks their mind, with evidence to enforce his feelings, then, to me, that makes for a strong opinion.  I think Garland is ripe for the Supreme Court.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Salg,
Something to keep in mind, PR doesn't stop anyone from walking their golf course at anytime, peak or not. That, to me, beats the hell out the cart ball mentality.

If you were to go to the management and explain where they could make the experience better for walkers I wouldn't think they'd turn a deaf ear, especially in light of all the college matches that will be held there.

[Norbert P]

. . . PR doesn't stop anyone from walking their golf course at anytime, peak or not.  . . .

No, but it sure is annoying to pay for something that you're not using because of a profit policy.  It weeds out the frugal, surely, and if that's what they want then they get their wish.  It doesn't help their reputation as walker friendly, though, but perhaps they don't want that rep anyway.  So, if walkers don't show up, then I guess their policy works. 

[Rob Rigg]

Rob,
I'm glad you realize that your remark, ..."for those who could not type www.palouseridge.com into their computer' was peevish in nature, but it's still rather childish of you to take it out on the golf course. Behavior like that surely diminishes your site, nothing else.

Jim,

Too many "pops" this evening?

Thanks for all the enlightening parental advice and insults that start with the letter "P" - very impressive - way to add value to the site.

Jordan,

Do you ever walk when you play at PR? What percentage of golfers walk there if you had to guess?

Do college players walk when they play tournaments at PR?

Have you played Tetherow? If so, how does the walk compare?

I rated Tetherow a 2/4 or "Orange" for walkability but most probably think it is "Red" which is understandable. There are a few long treks between holes that interupt the flow of the round but I still think it is tough but worthwhile.

It looks like PR is challenged with some steep climbs and descents from G to T along with the big 9G to 10T walk, per Garland's review, which would definitely put it in the Orange/Red zone depending on the fitness of the golfer.

At Tetherow, the staff have really listened to walkers and tried to make helpful adjustments for 2009 where possible. There are still more walking paths that needed to be added but it is a good start.

Are PR thinking of doing the same where possible?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Slag,
Is the 'bold' face type that's used when using a quote any different than the bold face type I used earlier?  

I understand your position, I really do, but this course doesn't seem to be a major offender. You can walk at anytime, and if you're frugal you either wait until the afternoon rate kicks in or play on a weekday.

When I read Garland's review I must say that I chuckled when he said that he had to walk around a rope and through some tall grass to get onto a fairway. Do you remember the accompanying photo:  



Let me use my best Matt Ward (sorry Matt) - PUHLEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZE !  

Rob,
I described your behavior as petulant, peevish, and childish.

You chose to respond by calling me a drunkard.

I rest my case.

 

[Norbert P]

             Andy Dufresne:       "How can you be so obtuse?"

          Shawshank Redemption