4.5 stars on a new 9 hole easy course?

[davetherocketguy]

Exactly correct.

Thanks!!

When are we all going to learn that (a) reviews are subjective (b) the rating of a course doesn't change your enjoyment of playing said course (c) a course can have any number of holes (7,9,11,13,15,16,17, etc.)

This...so much.

I think we need to start looking at reviews as whether or not they are helpful. Just like the voting for the reviews states. Is it helpful or not? I think the rating needs to be a secondary - but still signifigant - part of the review. When I write reviews I try to write it in such a way as to express what a visitor would want to know on a first trip or help those who maintain the course to make it better.

 

[sillybizz]

Thanks!!



This...so much.

I think we need to start looking at reviews as whether or not they are helpful. Just like the voting for the reviews states. Is it helpful or not? I think the rating needs to be a secondary - but still signifigant - part of the review. When I write reviews I try to write it in such a way as to express what a visitor would want to know on a first trip or help those who maintain the course to make it better.

That's the whole purpose of this site haha is helping people decide which course(s) to play, focusing highly on non local players. I think the rating system helps when you factor in trusted reviewers more so than fly by reviewers or home course rating bumpers. I would like to see a review only and have people put their rating in the review.

 

[sisyphus]

I think we need to start looking at reviews as whether or not they are helpful. Just like the voting for the reviews states. Is it helpful or not? I think the rating needs to be a secondary - but still significant - part of the review. When I write reviews I try to write it in such a way as to express what a visitor would want to know on a first trip or help those who maintain the course to make it better.

:thmbup: Couldn't have said it better myself. Happy to hear others feel exactly the same way! :hfive:

 

[scarpfish]

FWIW, I've seldom, if ever found homer reviews on here terribly helpful. Case in point.

 

[araytx]

I am a bit miffed at some people who summarily dismiss that a 9-hole course can be a 4, 4.5, or even a 5 (if well-done). You have to be saying that based upon the 9-holers you've seen throughout your life, or maybe you just have a simple prejudice. I am CERTAIN that some of the top professional disc golf course designers, given the right topography of land and freedom could design an outstanding 9-hole disc golf course -- especially if they could use multiple pins and multiple tees on each hole.

There may not be one out there yet, but there could be.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I am a bit miffed at some people who summarily dismiss that a 9-hole course can be a 4, 4.5, or even a 5 (if well-done). You have to be saying that based upon the 9-holers you've seen throughout your life, or maybe you just have a simple prejudice. I am CERTAIN that some of the top professional disc golf course designers, given the right topography of land and freedom could design an outstanding 9-hole disc golf course -- especially if they could use multiple pins and multiple tees on each hole.

There may not be one out there yet, but there could be.

Emphasis on could be. I'm not going to say it can't happen but I will say it's rather unlikely I will ever find a 9 holer that is good enough for a 4 or 4.5. The reason (for me anyways) that 9 holers are short. Even if every hole is over 300' at a champion caliber level it'll feel a little incomplete and I'll be wanting more. Also, if you have the room for a huge 9 hole champion caliber course people are far more likely to try to put in a 18 hole course instead even if it means sacrificing length and difficulty since it's easier to run tournaments.

 

[DavidSauls]

Also, if you have the room for a huge 9 hole champion caliber course people are far more likely to try to put in a 18 hole course instead even if it means sacrificing length and difficulty since it's easier to run tournaments.

It'll probably happen somewhere on a private course. Someone who owns enough land but wants to build himself some killer holes, perhaps with 2 tees each, rather than 18 shorter holes.

Harder to see it happening on a public course.

 

[BrotherDave]

I can definitely think of an 18 hole course that would be much better as a 9 holer (Springwood *cough cough*) and some 9 holers that would be worse if 9 more holes were shoe-horned in. I'm in the same camp that has no problem giving <18 hole courses a really high rating b/c I've always preferred quality over quantity. The other thing is it helps with granularity or whatever. People are already too reluctant to use the full 10 point scale to rate courses b/c they're unwilling to give out 5's and 0's. If a 3 disc rating for example is the best I can give a great 9 holer than comparing it against other holers is a lot more convoluted. The difference between a 2.5 course and a 3 course will be razor thin and blurred.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I can definitely think of an 18 hole course that would be much better as a 9 holer (Springwood *cough cough*)

(Knollwood *cough cough*)

 

[scarpfish]

I've seen no shortage of crammed 18 holers that would be better as a 9 or 12 hole course, perhaps with multiple tees. I'd probably rate them higher if they were the latter, but I still can't see such layouts getting above a '4'.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm in the same camp that has no problem giving <18 hole courses a really high rating b/c I've always preferred quality over quantity.

The catch is, the courses with really high ratings, 4.5+, perhaps 4.0+, tend to have both quality and quantity. Or, better, a quantity of quality. It's hard to see how a course with half the quantity of quality is just as good.

 

[DavidSauls]

The other thing is it helps with granularity or whatever. People are already too reluctant to use the full 10 point scale to rate courses b/c they're unwilling to give out 5's and 0's. If a 3 disc rating for example is the best I can give a great 9 holer than comparing it against other holers is a lot more convoluted. The difference between a 2.5 course and a 3 course will be razor thin and blurred.

Not much of a problem, unless someone is specifically and exclusively looking for 9 hole courses. Besides, if you are visiting an area with many courses, the ones ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 already have a lot of overlap. You might even generally assume that, choosing between two 2.7-rated courses, an 18-holer and the 9-holer, that the latter has better holes, but fewer of them, and make your decision which to play based on which you'd prefer.

 

[goosefraba1]

I've seen no shortage of crammed 18 holers that would be better as a 9 or 12 hole course, perhaps with multiple tees. I'd probably rate them higher if they were the latter, but I still can't see such layouts getting above a '4'.

Golden Gate in San Fran would be a heluva a lot better/safer 12 hole course.

 

[ohtobediscing]

A month ago I played Von Baer, a 9er near Logan UT that was so enticing we were on it by 7 am the next two mornings before our workshop at 9 am.
If I was reviewing it I'd toss it a 3.5, and want to give it a 4(though the coarseness of its vegetation and hazardous footing in a few places would hold me back).

 

[Spiky]

That has nothing to do with my rating of a single course. Id compare the 9s to other great 9s.

Uhhhh....?

Its like trying to compare a condo unit to a single family home or small car to a truck.

They all serve different purposes but need to be reviewed within their designed use.

I see this everywhere, all the time, and I feel it is very shortsighted. I'll compare my socks to an airplane if I can find valid reason. Don't limit "comparisons". Makes them absolutely pointless, the opposite of why we compare things.

We have one 9 hole here that could certainly deserve a chance at a 5. It falls short because of gravel tees, many of which are now pits and dangerous. Loch Ness. And one 10 hole, Red Oak.

 

[scarpfish]

How many of us can hold up our hands and say we made a 9, 10 or 12 hole course the crown destination of a big disc golf trip? I'd doubt there would be more than a few.

It's not that a course cdesigner can't put the same inspiration into a 9 hole layout that they can an 18, it's the fact that such isn't the primary reason nine hole courses go into the ground.

 

[scarpfish]

Now a couple examples of the opposite stupidity. Apparently a course in IA that was in the 4.4 range has gotten a 0.5 and a 0 in the last few days because it apparently had too many other park users over 4th of July weekend. One of the reviews more or less implies that the reviewer didn't actually play it. Somehow between the time these two guys played, someone else reported the course conditions as "perfect".

I know some people say that the sane reviewers mitigate the damage these people do ( it's still rated in the 3.8 range), but small town courses like this don't get reviewers every month. Around ten months went by before these numbskulls showed up.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Now a couple examples of the opposite stupidity. Apparently a course in IA that was in the 4.4 range has gotten a 0.5 and a 0 in the last few days because it apparently had too many other park users over 4th of July weekend. One of the reviews more or less implies that the reviewer didn't actually play it. Somehow between the time these two guys played, someone else reported the course conditions as "perfect".

I know some people say that the sane reviewers mitigate the damage these people do ( it's still rated in the 3.8 range), but small town courses like this don't get reviewers every month. Around ten months went by before these numbskulls showed up.

That might be a situation to contact timg over. He doesn't do it often but I've heard he will delete weird reviews every now and then. I believe in the Pendelton King Park thread he mentioned deleting some strange reviews.

 

[pauldst]

Now a couple examples of the opposite stupidity. Apparently a course in IA that was in the 4.4 range has gotten a 0.5 and a 0 in the last few days because it apparently had too many other park users over 4th of July weekend. One of the reviews more or less implies that the reviewer didn't actually play it. Somehow between the time these two guys played, someone else reported the course conditions as "perfect".

I know some people say that the sane reviewers mitigate the damage these people do ( it's still rated in the 3.8 range), but small town courses like this don't get reviewers every month. Around ten months went by before these numbskulls showed up.

Same reviewer gave Shaver a 5. Shaver is good, but certainly not a 5, especially after the changes that I read have happened since I last played there (now has more navigation issues, among other things, to offset improvements).The reviewer has only played 2 courses???

 

[Aim For The Chains]

I see this everywhere, all the time, and I feel it is very shortsighted. I'll compare my socks to an airplane if I can find valid reason. Don't limit "comparisons". Makes them absolutely pointless, the opposite of why we compare things.

We have one 9 hole here that could certainly deserve a chance at a 5. It falls short because of gravel tees, many of which are now pits and dangerous. Loch Ness. And one 10 hole, Red Oak.

Yep. With the 3 sets of "real tees" and some actual maintenance like some other top courses offer and we have quite a few 9ers id consider bumping up. Most are publicly run though and not much can be done outside of a league etc stepping up.

Hansen has greatly improved over the past few years. Still hansen but unlike lochness which has become less desirable.

Red oak FTW! What a fun course.