- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,723
Now you've done it. I dont think everyone LOVES the courses you mentioned...they are just afraid if they say they dont they wont be able to go and experience the vibe.
I know that's how I feel about it
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Now you've done it. I dont think everyone LOVES the courses you mentioned...they are just afraid if they say they dont they wont be able to go and experience the vibe.
I don't get all the tacky, man made obstacles, hanging baskets, hole in the ground baskets, artificial greens..., that some of these top rated courses have. Feels like miniature golf.
I kind of echo your thoughts. Maybe it was because I didnt know the course at all but I wasn't a huge fan. I honestly think we should start all over with ratings and make them 0-10 scale. There should be more separation between a truly great course of 4.something and a middle of the road 3.
Both of you guys are off on this. Worlds is about appropriate tournament configurations, not necessarily the daily play layouts. We are fortunate that several of our courses are close to blue level tournament layouts so only a few changes were made on some courses. If you played Emporia the year before, their courses were tricked out with lots of additional OB. If you had never played Kaposia before Worlds, that layout would likely have been rated the the most challenging and appropriate course because it actually turned out that way based on the hole-by-hole stats produced from the event.
All previous Worlds have had one or two courses with SSAs several throws higher than any in the Twin Cities. Kaposia would have been seen as weak relative to its reputation by the out-of-town players if we had played any 18 combo of the regular holes. In fact, we would not have been allowed to play hole 5 in its regular configuration unless we did what we did stacking up three par 4s (26, 27>3, 1>4) in front of it to reduce the stack up there. It worked pretty well but hole 5 still generated a wait near the end of the rounds from what I understand. It turned out that Kaposia was the toughest course (even then only SSA 55) and did a good job spreading the scores among the contenders.
Such as? Frankly, we modified some of those holes with the tweaks we did for Am Worlds. And scoring spread is only one of the stats looked at. Luckiness can actually be measured along with several other more esoteric stats.This is where I fundamentally disagree with you, Chuck. You have valid points about speed-of-play for worlds, but you put so much emphasis on scoring spread, scoring spread, scoring spread that you fail to see holes that are just dumb, unfair and reward the lucky.
Such as? Frankly, we modified some of those holes with the tweaks we did for Am Worlds. And scoring spread is only one of the stats looked at. Luckiness can actually be measured along with several other more esoteric stats.
Pleasant view disc golf course in Russellville Arkansas, everyone who says they shoot better here than old post is a dirty liar. for some reason this course only eats your favorite disc
Such as? Frankly, we modified some of those holes with the tweaks we did for Am Worlds. And scoring spread is only one of the stats looked at. Luckiness can actually be measured along with several other more esoteric stats.
Hole 3 at The Valley is not my ideal for a hole design and I've said so before. However, if you take out any one of those trees, the hole essentially becomes wide open and there's no way to save it since it can't be made much longer. So it becomes an interesting risk reward hole where you can still play it safe to virtually guarantee a 3 if you choose to, or go for it. The gaps are smaller than ideal but they are visible and not fluky if you have the skill.
I would love to see this as an out of 10 rating as well, the toss up whether to rate 3 or 4 is sometimes too close to really be happy with what you have given it, choosing between a 5,6,7 or 8 would be much easier for me.
I would love to see a revamp of the rating system to a two tier system.
One rating for the amenities/how its looked after/anything non golf related and then the one I'm more interested in, the actual quality of the holes laid out in front of you.
The system as is is always going to be weighted against free to play courses and will mean people miss out on great golf locations as a result going to play to play that whilst amazingly looked after and with a number of other ways to add to your enjoyment might not provide the pure pleasure of the perfectly designed hole, a couple of 5 star holes on an otherwise 1 star course amenities wise would definitely be preferable for me to a 5 star amenities place made up of a number of 3 star holes.
I would love to see this as an out of 10 rating as well, the toss up whether to rate 3 or 4 is sometimes too close to really be happy with what you have given it, choosing between a 5,6,7 or 8 would be much easier for me.
I'm particularly not fond of Hickory Run up in Jim Thorpe, Pa. The tee pads horrible and uneven giving you a hope and pray feeling each time to come to a new hole. Besides a few holes, the course is mediocre at best IMHO. If they put some concrete tee pads in, it would make it a little more consistent.
Agreed. You really have to filter through reviews and find ones you trust.I'd be confident to say most casual players don't understand what a good hole is or a good grouping of them. Shoot, even the top designers argue over that. You will still have someone rate a great long course down for it being hard and great short courses down for being too short...then the same with courses with to much or to little water, elevation, risk, open shots, wooded shots.
and nothing stops the regional bias or ingnorance you see by people loving their local courses or not understanding what else is out there in the world. You shouldnt be able to review a course with under 10-15 courses played.
Allowing quarter ratings allows similar rating freedom without drastically changing the # system system.