Poor Adam_Valk gave Flip City a less than 5 review

[Danger]

I said it before and I'll say it again, the question is 'WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?' The question is NOT 'Was this rating helpful?' All of you morons that base your thumbs off of a rating, and not the helpfulness of a review need to pay more attention to the point of thumbs being there. Everybody is entitled to an opinion of rating, but if a review is poor, then sure, thumbs it down.

 

[BrotherDave]

If ball golfers were rating the best of their best; the ones that would be chosen; would certainly have serious water features. True???

Mistake #1. This is not bolf. Bolf involves artificially creating landscapes that are usually not common to the area, including lush greens and water hazards. One of the things that makes DG great is that it's the antithesis of this, more eco-friendly and natural. I'd much rather be more lenient in doling out 5's than see courses artificially make water hazards to be more "awesome."

 

[Frank Delicious]

I said it before and I'll say it again, the question is 'WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?' The question is NOT 'Was this rating helpful?' All of you morons that base your thumbs off of a rating, and not the helpfulness of a review need to pay more attention to the point of thumbs being there. Everybody is entitled to an opinion of rating, but if a review is poor, then sure, thumbs it down.

This is a good post. I'm quoting it so people have to read it twice.

 

[tallpaul]

Mistake #1. This is not bolf. Bolf involves artificially creating landscapes that are usually not common to the area, including lush greens and water hazards. One of the things that makes DG great is that it's the antithesis of this, more eco-friendly and natural. I'd much rather be more lenient in doling out 5's than see courses artificially make water hazards to be more "awesome."

I would submit that the best of the best bolf water courses are natural; and that designers who later put all sorts of man made water features in; were just catering to this. And, you can be sure, that many of the water features on disc courses, are man made as well.
With that said; I certainly agree with your post; as I am not partial to the eventual manipulation of land and the huge prices that will come with this, in disc golf. One of the rare 4.5 ratings, from me, is for Foundation DGC, in Centrailia Illinois. They do have some nice creek features in play; entirely nature made, and I consider this a plus. But, the course itself was installed without the falling of a single tree; at the insistence of land caretakers.
I know, I know; "this guy goes from one side of an argument to the other!!!" I'm just throwing stuff out there; what is life besides hearing viewpoints?

 

[scarpfish]

One of the things that makes DG great is that it's the antithesis of this, more eco-friendly and natural.

Ehh, I can think of at least five incidences off the top of my head, where a decent amount of not so eco-friendly deforesting was done to clear fairways for disc golf courses, and I'm sure across the country there have been several more. All this talk about our sport being good to the environment is about one third truth and two-thirds propaganda to get more courses built.

But back to the subject at hand. No, I don't think a course needs water shots on it to be given '5' consideration. In fact, I think when holes are not designed properly, water shots where the hazard is impossible for most players to clear, or so easy anyone can clear it can be the course's undoing. Trees are hands down the most important obstacles we have.

That being said, if a particular reviewer thinks water is a necessity for a '5', I can respect that, even if I don't agree with it.

 

[peabody]

I agree with BD here. The two games are very much different. Most of the places I play have water hazards only after a heavy rain or during a downpour. When it's dry there is no water, just creek beds or indentions in the dirt where water once stood. Would I rate it less cause I played the course when there was no water? Nope

Don't pay attention to the thumbs, I read the review for MY info. It's all subjective anyhoo.
The only reviewer I trust is me and I don't need a thumb up or down. I think this trusted reviewer stuff is bull$h!t. Who really cares what one guy says over another? Just because he is a "Trusted Reviewer" I am supposed to believe anything he writes? That's just garbage.

 

[bikinjack]

Mistake #1. This is not bolf. Bolf involves artificially creating landscapes that are usually not common to the area, including lush greens and water hazards. One of the things that makes DG great is that it's the antithesis of this, more eco-friendly and natural. I'd much rather be more lenient in doling out 5's than see courses artificially make water hazards to be more "awesome."

I have to agree 100%. Amen, BrotherDave.

 

[NDABRUSH]

I understand what folks are saying regarding the non helpful info., but a course such as Flip; which has umpteen reviews already...I mean, what are you going to add to the info? In the case of courses with lots of reviews; people that are still submitting reviews are doing so basically to influence the ratings. My major question has not to do so much with this particular review; but rather is an intro to the question of whether or not water is a requirement for a 5 rated course.



I, personally, have debated on this issue as well. In my younger years, I thought, "Why don't more courses have water shots, like bolf courses?" Later on, I thought, "Man, I hate losing discs in the water. This can get expensive quick." I think, I've now come full circle, and while I prefer water features that allow you to retrieve discs; I just think, that when thinking of "the best of the best" or "the perfect course, with nothing I would want to change;" that water would have to be in the equation.

I am easier impressed than someone with 100 plus courses played. I like wooded courses so water is not a must for it to be a 5 to me. During some thread I posed the question "Can a course be a 5 if it is wooded with elevation but has no water shots?" I believe most people said it must have it all to be a 5. Water, woods and elevation. Flip is described as lightly wooded but has wooded holes and it says it is very hilly I believe. So it has everything except water like the guy says in his review. It always comes back to personal preference if the person is being honest and not just trying to lower or raise the courses overall average. Also you are at the mercy of the land with which to work, unless you make some man made pond or something along those lines.

 

[BrotherDave]

Ehh, I can think of at least five incidences off the top of my head, where a decent amount of not so eco-friendly deforesting was done to clear fairways for disc golf courses, and I'm sure across the country there have been several more. All this talk about our sport being good to the environment is about one third truth and two-thirds propaganda to get more courses built.

I know what you are saying but even forest fires are eco-friendly to a point. To me, any course put in that leaves old growth forest alone and clears out new growth, saplings and underbrush is A OK to me.

But let's not thread drift too much.

Trees are hands down the most important obstacles we have

Spot on :clap:

If somebody knocks a course for not having water, that's fine with me, that's their prerogative. Ask me tomorrow this same question and I'll probably have a different answer, lol.

 

[bikinjack]

I know what you are saying but even forest fires are eco-friendly to a point. To me, any course put in that leaves old growth forest alone and clears out new growth, saplings and underbrush is A OK to me.

Forest fires are not only eco-friendly, they are an essential part of the ecology of a forest.

 

[grube.fresh]

If trusted reviewer medals are peoples goals(rewards) they are looking for, I suggest not reviewing flip or idle. Enough reviews already.

 

[Danger]

I think all of the reviews for Flip and Idle should be removed so new ones can go up, and disable thumbs for them LOL. People that thumbs those courses just don't get the concept of it at all.

 

[BrotherDave]

I think all of the reviews for Flip and Idle should be removed so new ones can go up, and disable thumbs for them LOL. People that thumbs those courses just don't get the concept of it at all.

I think courses from KY and MI shouldn't be allowed in the rankings period.

 

[harr0140]

Coming from a long history of "bolf", as someone has so eloquently put it (Thanks tallpaul) and "bolf course maintenance", the best golf courses are not formed to the property, they are formed to look like they were always there, even though it is obvious that to level off a fairway on a mountainside (and yes that is a course I worked at in Colorado) hundreds of thousands of tons of soil needed to be moved to accomplish this.

DG may feel more natural or ecofriendly, but on a different scale, it is still not good for the environment, but what the hell is good for it anymore?. Trees still need to be cut down, levelling may need to be done, and way more compaction and erosion occurs on DG courses than golf courses. The one big difference is that DG courses require less maintenance, thus less herbicides and pesticides, less fertilizer etc etc etc. That is just where DG is at, but that doesnt mean it will always be like that. For you oldtimers I am sure some of you have travelled a lot over the decades of playing this sport and there are courses now that blow away courses from the 80's. Those new courses also require more inputs, more maintenance, and also become less sustainable than the courses from the 80's. So please lets not say one is better or more ecofriendly than the other. They both are harmful to the environment whether you want to admit it or not. Just because it feels like a nice walk in the woods does not mean it is ecofriendly.

There is so much more I could say here, but I do not want to get into a pissing match here, but just some things some of you may not have ever thought about.

 

[harr0140]

Back on topic . . . does water need to be there to make the course a 5 . . . no way. Does drastic elevation need to be present to make a course a 5 . . . no way. It might make a course more interesting to have everything, but if the best features of an incredible property are used but lack one thing, I feel it can still be a 5. If it lacks elevation and water, can it still be a 5 . . . well maybe. It better have a lot of trees to account fo the lack of varying obstacles and challenge.

 

[Mark R]

The guy evidentally favors courses with water holes. Big deal, his choice. Not a great review, but I didn't flag him for it.

 

[DiscChucker]

I said it before and I'll say it again, the question is 'WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?' The question is NOT 'Was this rating helpful?' All of you morons that base your thumbs off of a rating, and not the helpfulness of a review need to pay more attention to the point of thumbs being there. Everybody is entitled to an opinion of rating, but if a review is poor, then sure, thumbs it down.

I wholeheartedly agree with this thought. I don't necessarily think that's the case for this particular review but I do believe that many people give a thumbs up or thumbs down solely based on the rating, regardless of the content of the review itself. A review can certainly be helpful to the reader even if the reviewer and reader have differing views on course quality.

Just because Adam only gave a 4.5 out of 5 total for Flip City; he's getting the severe thumbs down treatment. Only thing he said was that there is no water there. I personally, have only given one 5 rating so far; and part of the reason is because water IS IN PLAY on nearly half the holes of a 24 hole layout. Now, I have yet to play Flip City; though, I am hoping to remedy this in 2010...hopefully by meeting a bunch of my fellow DGCR members at a big get together. But, if one is considering a 5 to be perfect....wouldn't water shots have to be included? Thoughts???

I honestly don't think Adam_Valk is getting the severe thumbs down treatment simply because he gave Flip City a 4.5 instead of a 5. You're spot on when you say that the only thing he said was "there was no water." That is the ONLY helpful thing in his review. The review is simply a wrapped up generalization. You could actually apply this review to Renny.

For anyone who hasn't read the review, here it is:

Pros: This course will challenge every shot in your bag. It allows you as a golfer to focus on your shot making ability rather than just plain luck.

Cons: The only thing that keeps this course from being a 5 in my mind is their isn't any water hazards. I know there have been obstacles built to replace the lack of water, but water on this course would make this course even more beautiful.

Other Thoughts: The bugs are a given especially in the hot summer months, but overall a great course.

The Pros section fits Renny perfectly. And I would bet it fits many other courses across the country. I know this pros section could also be applied to Hornets Nest and Nevin.

The Cons section in this review could also be applied to Renny. Renny doesn't have water to contend with either but you certainly have obstacles and mandos to deal with.

As for the Other Thoughts section... Bugs? And in the hot summer months? Really? At least he was honest enough to state that it was a given. Bugs are a given no matter where you go. I would have probably found it helpful if he would have at least been a little more specific. Different regions of the country are plagued with different kinds of pests. For example Charlotte has tons of yellow jackets. In Austin, where I came from yellow jackets are not nearly as pervasive. Fire ants on the other hand are a major problem.

This review is generic in form. As someone who has never played Flip City, I'm given no information with which to determine the actual difficulty of the course, the general topography of the course or the density of the foliage. All three of those things can be easily summarized without the reviewer having to write a lengthy review.

As a reader of a review it really comes down to personal expectations. For me personally I expect a review to give me a mental picture of what to expect of a course. It doesn't have to include every minute detail; just a simple summarization is sufficient.

And I agree with BrotherDave, a course does not have to have water hazards or every other possible feature to qualify for a 5.

 

[Huk Finn]

Your house is not eco-friendly.

 

[klay]

Its a crap review. I gave a thumbs down for that reason only. If we only looked at the disc rating, why even have a section to put pros and cons?

Write a better, more thorough and better worded review and you'll get thumbs up! Or just stop reviewing Flip and Idle, doesn't seem to be worth it anymore.

 

[jhgonzo]

Coming from a long history of "bolf", as someone has so eloquently put it (Thanks tallpaul) and "bolf course maintenance", the best golf courses are not formed to the property, they are formed to look like they were always there, even though it is obvious that to level off a fairway on a mountainside (and yes that is a course I worked at in Colorado) hundreds of thousands of tons of soil needed to be moved to accomplish this.

DG may feel more natural or ecofriendly, but on a different scale, it is still not good for the environment, but what the hell is good for it anymore?. Trees still need to be cut down, levelling may need to be done, and way more compaction and erosion occurs on DG courses than golf courses. The one big difference is that DG courses require less maintenance, thus less herbicides and pesticides, less fertilizer etc etc etc. That is just where DG is at, but that doesnt mean it will always be like that. For you oldtimers I am sure some of you have travelled a lot over the decades of playing this sport and there are courses now that blow away courses from the 80's. Those new courses also require more inputs, more maintenance, and also become less sustainable than the courses from the 80's. So please lets not say one is better or more ecofriendly than the other. They both are harmful to the environment whether you want to admit it or not. Just because it feels like a nice walk in the woods does not mean it is ecofriendly.

There is so much more I could say here, but I do not want to get into a pissing match here, but just some things some of you may not have ever thought about.

A really good friend of mine went to school for ball golf, and is now a superintendent at a golf resort on the Southern Oregon Coast...anyway, he told me that the world-famous Whistling Straits (4 miles from my house) required them bringing in one-quarter of a million cubic tons of "dirt" to sculpt it to the Scottish links-style course that it's renowned for. That's crazy!

Back to DG...if you talk with Jon, the owner of Highbridge, he'll almost immediately turn the conversation into "sustainability" and how everything at Highbridge (concrete tees and baskets obviously excluded) is made from the materials provided to him by the land he owns. Indeed, in addition to the Honka House, he's currently building a number of small cabins using lumber from the land in order to provide more lodging to the ever-increasing numbers of DGers making the voyage to his awesome chunk of land. A lot of it had previously been developed into a future ball golf course, but for some reason that didn't pan out and DG took precedence (GREAT news for us!). Jon, from what he's told me, has never even played a round of DG in his life...he says (paraphrasing his words), "If I started, I know I'd be hooked, and I would never be able to devote my time to keep this place up for all the REAL disc golfers."

Wait...wasn't this thread about yet another Flip review?! And here I am going on about Highbridge...but at least 2 of the courses up there are 5-disc ratings IMO, and once The Bear is completed, I'm positive that'll be yet another 5-disc course.