Dave242 999 thumbs down

[RussMB]

How about a doggy head mini for the 1000 thumbs down! I would love that...it's almost like a badge of honor in these parts!

YES!! Cause that has to count for something! lol Those were hard earned thumbs downs. It's not like his reviews are an "Awesome course!" review or "I lost a disc, this course sucks" review that gets a thumbs down.

 

[Dave242]

No need for a TR exception for me. I appreciate the kind words, but in reality it really makes no difference. If my reviews and ratings get factored out when users hit the "TRs Only" button when browsing reviews, there is plenty of good info left.

The value of what I have done (at least I hope it is value) is that I have tried to play as many courses in an area as possible and rate them consistently - all of them. That way someone coming into an area I've played who has similar tastes to me can easily look at my list and maybe gather a perspective that is not as obvious from looking at the reviews for hours.

So in essence, it is the list that is important/valuable not necessarily the individual reviews/ratings (the list gives the individual ratings context). I would LOVE it if all players with over say 100 courses would have a complete rated list (rather than only 10-30% reviewed).

 

[DSCJNKY]

I would LOVE it if all players with over say 100 courses would have a complete rated list (rather than only 10-30% reviewed).

Except that a lot of the courses I played were before I found DGCR and started reviewing them and therefore my reviews would be "old"... even though I could write extremely accurate reviews for most of them. (for example: I could write and accurate review for every course I played in Oregon... but it's been 1.5 years or more. Same goes for Santa Barbara, Casitas, berkely, whittier, etc...).
DSCJNKY

 

[mashnut]

The value of what I have done (at least I hope it is value) is that I have tried to play as many courses in an area as possible and rate them consistently - all of them. That way someone coming into an area I've played who has similar tastes to me can easily look at my list and maybe gather a perspective that is not as obvious from looking at the reviews for hours.

I've actually spent a good deal of time looking at your Chicago area ratings. I moved here about 9 months ago, and have played just about everything in the area in that time, and have liked having your rating list to refer to when looking for new courses to play, and comparing your list to mine in how we thought the area courses were.

 

[Dave242]

Except that a lot of the courses I played were before I found DGCR and started reviewing them and therefore my reviews would be "old"... even though I could write extremely accurate reviews for most of them. (for example: I could write and accurate review for every course I played in Oregon... but it's been 1.5 years or more. Same goes for Santa Barbara, Casitas, berkely, whittier, etc...).
DSCJNKY

1.5 years in nothing! Courses rarely change significantly over that short a time - barring a huge storm or park reconfiguration. Even if 1-2 holes get moved that is not usually enough to change the rating or review significantly. Heck, going back to courses I have not playing in 5-7 years they are usually exactly as I remember them.

I say - do it!

You have a pretty wide geography played and a lot of courses under your belt.....and if your ratings are consistent you do us all a big favor by helping to standardize/normalize the effects of regional rating biases.

 

[JR Stengele]

It would be cool to see that in order to reach the diamond level you MUST review all the courses you have played unless they are extinct.:thmbup:

 

[skinner21]

It would be cool to see that in order to reach the diamond level you MUST review all the courses you have played unless they are extinct.:thmbup:

it wouldn't really solve anything. all you would have to do is take your unreviewed coursed off the list and *blam* diamond. but why would you want to punish someone who has accomplised so much? I can't even imagine the work it takes to get 1000 :thmbup:, and to deny entry into such an exclusive club based on something so obscure is odd, to say the least.

 

[Three Putt]

It would be cool to see that in order to reach the diamond level you MUST review all the courses you have played unless they are extinct.:thmbup:

Well, I played Riverside Park in Grand Rapids in 1999. My Aunt was hospitalized, and I took a break while visiting her to play a round. As I recall it sorta wagon-wheeled around a lagoon. I screwed up throwing into the wind and tossed an 8X Roc in the drink. Other than that, I remember nothing about the place. I mostly remember how sick my Aunt was. I don't think I was really in the mood to throw, I was just getting some air. In my spreadsheet I gave it 2 out of four stars and left the comment "Flat, mostly open. Lots of water (lost my best Roc.) Shots repetitive, kind of boring."

I live a good 9 hour drive from there now with no plans of going back. Given that I played there once, it has been over 10 years since I played there and I don't really remember why I wrote what I wrote, should I really be reviewing that course?

 

[scarpfish]

I suspect in due time, Dave's green thumbs will catch up to, and eventually surpass his red ones.

 

[tallpaul]

Diamond status will almost exclusively be from guys who review all of their courses, as they play them; i.e. younger guys. It is old guys Dave is referring to (in regards to wanting to see our courses reviewed); at this point in our lives we don't really care about the awards part. I've played a bazillion courses; worked a bazillion hours at my local ones; and thrown a bazillion shots. There are others of us here. Short of the copy and paste method (and Dave and I are buds; I'm not criticizing his methods; we've talked about it....and he's trying to push guys like me into reviewing all of ours played), it just ain't gonna happen. For reasons somewhat similar to what Three Putt said, we have played many rounds that are not remembered in the way reviews are done now.

 

[Posey Ching]

Since DGCR includes the 9 hole and under courses along with the 18 hole and over courses (and also the in betweens), how should a reviewer stack up and compare a 9 hole course to an 18 hole course?

Because generally speaking, it seems that from the start, the 9 hole course can only be half as good as an 18 hole course since it has half the holes (considering both courses are similar in nature).

Has a 9-hole course ever received a 5-star rating? Do you think it's valid?

I could see a 9-hole course that has a really good "replayable factor" get a semi-high disc rating. But it would be hard for me to give a 9 hole course a 4 or 5 disc rating and have it be on the same tier as a 4 or 5 18-hole course.

 

[biscoe]

Well, I played Riverside Park in Grand Rapids in 1999. My Aunt was hospitalized, and I took a break while visiting her to play a round. As I recall it sorta wagon-wheeled around a lagoon. I screwed up throwing into the wind and tossed an 8X Roc in the drink. Other than that, I remember nothing about the place. I mostly remember how sick my Aunt was. I don't think I was really in the mood to throw, I was just getting some air. In my spreadsheet I gave it 2 out of four stars and left the comment "Flat, mostly open. Lots of water (lost my best Roc.) Shots repetitive, kind of boring."

I live a good 9 hour drive from there now with no plans of going back. Given that I played there once, it has been over 10 years since I played there and I don't really remember why I wrote what I wrote, should I really be reviewing that course?

i played that course 2 years earlier when the am worlds were there. i went expecting to be able to compete based on good results on the east coast and arrived to find basically no woods and a ton of 350-400 foot holes with basically no trouble for guys who threw far with little effort. as men on films would say... "hated it".

i agree completely with all points of your post.

 

[biscoe]

i could rate virtually all the courses i have ever played in about 15 minutes, actually reviewing them would take a fortnight.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Since DGCR includes the 9 hole and under courses along with the 18 hole and over courses (and also the in betweens), how should a reviewer stack up and compare a 9 hole course to an 18 hole course?

Because generally speaking, it seems that from the start, the 9 hole course can only be half as good as an 18 hole course since it has half the holes (considering both courses are similar in nature).

Has a 9-hole course ever received a 5-star rating? Do you think it's valid?

I could see a 9-hole course that has a really good "replayable factor" get a semi-high disc rating. But it would be hard for me to give a 9 hole course a 4 or 5 disc rating and have it be on the same tier as a 4 or 5 18-hole course.

That is a good question, and one that I've been struggling with as I continue to play more courses and reassess my prior reviews. My home course is a 9 holer, and I have problems with objectively rating it against a similar 18 hole course. Does a bad 18 hole course automatically get a better rating than an average or slightly below average 9 holer? Beats me, I'm still trying to rationalize it all out since I'm fairly new to this reviewing thing.

My current opinion (one I'm not entirely sure I'm dead set on) is that if a 9 holer is fairly well designed, has reasonable amenities, is fun to play after repeated plays, and has a reasonable variety of hole types, I'd be ok with rating it higher or even significantly higher than a really badly designed and very blah 18 holer with similar amenities. Anyone else's thoughts on this?

 

[Dave242]

Since DGCR includes the 9 hole and under courses along with the 18 hole and over courses (and also the in betweens), how should a reviewer stack up and compare a 9 hole course to an 18 hole course?

Because generally speaking, it seems that from the start, the 9 hole course can only be half as good as an 18 hole course since it has half the holes (considering both courses are similar in nature).

Has a 9-hole course ever received a 5-star rating? Do you think it's valid?

I could see a 9-hole course that has a really good "replayable factor" get a semi-high disc rating. But it would be hard for me to give a 9 hole course a 4 or 5 disc rating and have it be on the same tier as a 4 or 5 18-hole course.

By that logic then no 18 holers could get a 5 since only the 27 holers could....and the 24's and 21's would get slightly less.

But........you have a very valid point I have not figured out. I have seen no one give a good explanation of a method on how to reconcile.

I keep 2 separate lists and make note of that in my reviews. It turns out that the majority of 9-holers are geared at beginners so they average a lower grade even on their own scale.

I enter those ratings here.....and no I have no 5's (except for the lone course I used a different grading method since the course was so darn unique - Campton Hills) and the three 4.5's I have have either been expanded to 18 (Winged Deer & Ashe County/High Country) or gone extinct (Cordelia).

 

[discpicable]

I think you rate 9 holers and 18 holers on the same scale. Just like I would rate a double disc album on the same scale as a single disc album in music. It's still one piece.

 

[Posey Ching]

That is a good question, and one that I've been struggling with as I continue to play more courses and reassess my prior reviews. My home course is a 9 holer, and I have problems with objectively rating it against a similar 18 hole course. Does a bad 18 hole course automatically get a better rating than an average or slightly below average 9 holer? Beats me, I'm still trying to rationalize it all out since I'm fairly new to this reviewing thing.

My current opinion (one I'm not entirely sure I'm dead set on) is that if a 9 holer is fairly well designed, has reasonable amenities, is fun to play after repeated plays, and has a reasonable variety of hole types, I'd be ok with rating it higher or even significantly higher than a really badly designed and very blah 18 holer with similar amenities. Anyone else's thoughts on this?

I guess I've just never seen a complete "really bad very blah" 18 holer. Yes, definitely have seen 18-holers with few or a lot of blah holes. But I've seen too many 9-holers that just make you go hmmmmmm..... or what the....

 

[Dave242]

Since this has nothing to do with my epic fail in garnering 95%+ thumbs up, I started a new thread with this excellent topic - here

copy-paste your responses from here over there if you want.

 

[Jukeshoe]

I think you rate 9 holers and 18 holers on the same scale. Just like I would rate a double disc album on the same scale as a single disc album in music. It's still one piece.

Oh good analogy! :hfive:

 

[discpicable]

Oh good analogy! :hfive:

Thank you, sir.