2 wrongs= right?

[Innovadude]

Here's the simple solution- many of the old course holes got moved to the right, turning former left hooks into now right hooks. Simply move 3,4,5 ..of those baskets back where they were, and the course is close enough to balanced out again.

 

[colodiscgolfer]

So this is all a case of the current temporary pin settings?

 

[magictenor1]

I'm not sure what you mean. Objectively, a course that heavily relies on one type of shot is not as good as one that requires many different shots. Isn't the whole point of reviewing courses to compare them objectively against one another?

this has nothing to do with the original topic but I totally disagree with your statement about objectively comparing courses. a review by definition is someone's opinion and as such cannot be objective. It is your subjective opinion no mattger how you slice it. the only way to be objective is to create a checklist and go down it item by item. either a course has it or it doesn't but even then that might be open to opinion as to whether it was there and also what was on the checklist might be open to opinion as to something's importance. Maybe this does relate after all since the original post offered an opinion of what he felt like a course should be. You might not agree with that opinion but it does come from someone who has played more courses than just about anyone.

 

[krallbd]

Seems to me that this course would be rated low becuase it is not challenging or interesting. Putting a course in the middle of a flat field is not good use of land, its a bad choice for a course location. When people are speaking of the best use of the land they are talking about layout, using elevation, creeks, shule etc to craft interesting and challenging holes.

I am still not convinced that a 'fair balance' of lefty and righty holes is necessary. If the majority of Americans were left handed therefore most courses in the country had a majority of left handed holes I would love to come across a right hand dominated course. Now I understand you want a balance on this specific course, but since it is so rare to have a left hand dominated course it seems to be justified.

I totally get where you are coming from, it would be nice to see a course that is unlike so many others. but, if it gets stale because of a "left handed bias" or whatever, then the reviewer should say so and suggesting how to make it a better course, in their opinion, is a good thing.

 

[thepowerofpancakes]

Here's the simple solution- many of the old course holes got moved to the right, turning former left hooks into now right hooks. Simply move 3,4,5 ..of those baskets back where they were, and the course is close enough to balanced out again.

if moving them back would make them more interesting and challenging then i say move them. if you are simply moving them becuase there are too many 'right hooks' then i dont see the point. if moving them doesnt effect how challenging they are or affect the course flow or anything, than move them.

at least for myself, my comments thus far have been about hypotheticals or in theory, not, of course, about the specific course you are referring to. having never played it i wouldnt know, but in general i dont see the harm in a lefty friendly course.

 

[thepowerofpancakes]

this has nothing to do with the original topic but I totally disagree with your statement about objectively comparing courses. a review by definition is someone's opinion and as such cannot be objective. It is your subjective opinion no mattger how you slice it. the only way to be objective is to create a checklist and go down it item by item. either a course has it or it doesn't but even then that might be open to opinion as to whether it was there and also what was on the checklist might be open to opinion as to something's importance. Maybe this does relate after all since the original post offered an opinion of what he felt like a course should be. You might not agree with that opinion but it does come from someone who has played more courses than just about anyone.

I dont think i would find much help in a review that did not try to be objective. If a reviewer doesnt make a review based on his own set of standards, hopefully standards he has thought about, then i'm not sure i could trust it. i mean, if a reviewer who can only throw backhand and is just not very good says that the design is poor because there is no fairway to throw down. that is kind of bogus. if the reviewer weights what he feels to be important than that is completley objective, as long as the reader knows this. but if you review a course based on your feelings, your mood, and your hidden or unkown biases then what good is that going to be?

 

[magictenor1]

I dont think i would find much help in a review that did not try to be objective. If a reviewer doesnt make a review based on his own set of standards, hopefully standards he has thought about, then i'm not sure i could trust it. i mean, if a reviewer who can only throw backhand and is just not very good says that the design is poor because there is no fairway to throw down. that is kind of bogus. if the reviewer weights what he feels to be important than that is completley objective, as long as the reader knows this. but if you review a course based on your feelings, your mood, and your hidden or unkown biases then what good is that going to be?

My point is that there is no such thing as objectivity when doing a review. i have my standards (what i like or what i think a DG course should be) and you have yours. Dave242 lists what his criteria are and reviews accordingly. he gives his honest OPINION according to his criteria. that is what almost everyone does but your opinion is not mine. You might think lots of OB is acon while I might list it as a pro. All subjective. You like chocolate ice cream, i don't subjective not objective.

 

[garublador]

My point is that there is no such thing as objectivity when doing a review.

There is for a good review. A purely subjective review is useless to others.

 

[magictenor1]

We will have to agree to disagree because I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective "review" There should be factual info in a review such as are there bathrooms, multiple tees etc. I am not saying you don't put info people can use. a good review will have this kind of info. the conclusions one draws however are subjective. You might say lots of trees and list it as a con and i might list the same fact as a pro. That is based on what you like or think,totally subjective.

 

[thepowerofpancakes]

My point is that there is no such thing as objectivity when doing a review. i have my standards (what i like or what i think a DG course should be) and you have yours. Dave242 lists what his criteria are and reviews accordingly. he gives his honest OPINION according to his criteria. that is what almost everyone does but your opinion is not mine. You might think lots of OB is acon while I might list it as a pro. All subjective. You like chocolate ice cream, i don't subjective not objective.

ok, i got ya, but if you say in your review of ice cream that you consider fruit to be your highest value and then you review vanilla or choclate and give it a low rating i will know it was becuase you place a high value on fruit. if fruit flavored ice cream is important to me then your review will be helpful, that seems pretty objective to me

 

[magictenor1]

ok, i got ya, but if you say in your review of ice cream that you consider fruit to be your highest value and then you review vanilla or choclate and give it a low rating i will know it was becuase you place a high value on fruit. if fruit flavored ice cream is important to me then your review will be helpful, that seems pretty objective to me

Objective means facts without feelings,prejudices or interpretations. the very word value implies my opinion my bias towards. To me it is all in the definition of objective. i include facts in my review but the conclusions i draw from then are subjective ie open to my likes and dislikes interpretations etc.

 

[cydisc]

All reviews will state the opinions of their authors for a given course. Good reviews will also add justifications for those opinions. This gives the reader a point of reference to make their own judgements for the worth of the course.

For example, I might prefer tight, technical courses carved out of cedar forests, so I'll give Mary Moore Searight in Austin a favorable review because of that. You might dislike that type of course so you may decide to skip that course when in Austin. We may disagree on the rating for the course, but the real value is the information given in the review so that the reader can judge for himself.

I base my decision on a review's helpfulness by the information that's given, not whether I agree with the author's opinion.

 

[magictenor1]

All reviews will state the opinions of their authors for a given course. Good reviews will also add justifications for those opinions. This gives the reader a point of reference to make their own judgements for the worth of the course.

For example, I might prefer tight, technical courses carved out of cedar forests, so I'll give Mary Moore Searight in Austin a favorable review because of that. You might dislike that type of course so you may decide to skip that course when in Austin. We may disagree on the rating for the course, but the real value is the information given in the review so that the reader can judge for himself.

I base my decision on a review's helpfulness by the information that's given, not whether I agree with the author's opinion.

Exactly! 100% agree. Give the info and then your opinion. the info can help someone make a decision about the course for themselves. my issue is that many people on the site say not helpful just because they don't agree with the opinion.

 

[garublador]

my issue is that many people on the site say not helpful just because they don't agree with the opinion.

I can't argue with that.

There are things that are objectively good or bad when it comes to course design. Lots of holes with a very narrow score distribution (e.g. lots of holes where everyone gets a 2) would be bad. A course where one type of shot will get you a good score on a vast majority of holes is bad. Those are the types of things that a good review will take into account. I know my favorite course to play isn't the best course in the area, so I don't rate it that way. More words about the authors opinions and background might make the descriptions more useful, but that won't affect the accuracy of the review but without scoring based on a set of pre defined criteria, the actual scores or review of the courses are useless, even if the description of the course is good.

 

[Dave242]

now I know where all my helpfuls are coming from - thanks garub!! (What is a garublador anyways? I always read it guh-roob-u-lay-tor )

 

[DirtyMittenDG]

Whats funny is, Black locust dosnt even favor "rhfh/lfbh" to the point were it makes a big difference! I dont like it because most holes consist of open fairways, thick woods on each side, and some holes are way longer than they should be for how tight they are.

 

[Dave242]

I dont like it because most holes consist of open fairways, thick woods on each side, and some holes are way longer than they should be for how tight they are.

What??! Are the holes open or narrow or thickly wooded?

 

[DirtyMittenDG]

What??! Are the holes open or narrow or thickly wooded?

This isnt on every hole but alot of holes are pretty narrow fairways with nothing in the middle and super thick brush on both sides. Heavy (Risk/Reward), the risk outways the reward alot of the time though.

 

[thepowerofpancakes]

Objective means facts without feelings,prejudices or interpretations. the very word value implies my opinion my bias towards. To me it is all in the definition of objective. i include facts in my review but the conclusions i draw from then are subjective ie open to my likes and dislikes interpretations etc.

yes, that is true...but i still think someones opinion is more useful if they have defined the values they are basing their opinion on. at least that way it seems like they are trying more or less to objectivley describe the course while rating it based on what they value. I'm not sure that is even possible, for me i would rate a course high based on how challenging it is, but even as i describe what i think is making it challenging or not would be purely subjective. so im not sure, ive just been thinking about this a lot lately as i try to decide how i want to write reviews.

 

[thepowerofpancakes]

All reviews will state the opinions of their authors for a given course. Good reviews will also add justifications for those opinions. This gives the reader a point of reference to make their own judgements for the worth of the course.

For example, I might prefer tight, technical courses carved out of cedar forests, so I'll give Mary Moore Searight in Austin a favorable review because of that. You might dislike that type of course so you may decide to skip that course when in Austin. We may disagree on the rating for the course, but the real value is the information given in the review so that the reader can judge for himself.

I base my decision on a review's helpfulness by the information that's given, not whether I agree with the author's opinion.

well said, i find this very helpful...

so i'm wondering what makes the top 10 courses so highly rated. does that mean that courses offer everthing that everyone would want?