gdub58
Birdie Member
With this in mind, I propose we loosen up the ratings so that really good 24 or 27 hole courses can be rated up to a 6 or 7...
-
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)
4.5 stars on a new 9 hole easy course?
- Thread starter troyrugg
- Start date
With this in mind, I propose we loosen up the ratings so that really good 24 or 27 hole courses can be rated up to a 6 or 7...
I propose this sounds like a bad idea. For starters, all current review scores would have to be adjusted accordingly. 24/27 holers do not have a monopoly on quality--some are a hot mess, and some are just a mess, period. And how do you then rate complexes with multiple courses, most of which are better than any 24/27 holer?
Last edited:
So Phantom Falls (39 holes) in Pine, Colorado could be rated what? Perhaps an 8 or a 9?
DeLaveaga in Santa Cruz, California is currently at 29 holes. So that could rate as high as what? a 8.2?????
Two of only five courses that I've ever rated five stars, Whistler Bend (27 holes) in Roseburg, Oregon and Beaver Ranch (23 holes) have more than 18 holes, what about them?
For most of us, a five star course is a five star course for a reason, regardless of how many holes it has. I don't think you can put a top limit on a 9 hole course anymore than you could cap the rating of an 18 hole course at 4.5.
And for the record, I don't think I've ever rated any 9 hole course higher than 3.5.
DeLaveaga in Santa Cruz, California is currently at 29 holes. So that could rate as high as what? a 8.2?????
Two of only five courses that I've ever rated five stars, Whistler Bend (27 holes) in Roseburg, Oregon and Beaver Ranch (23 holes) have more than 18 holes, what about them?
For most of us, a five star course is a five star course for a reason, regardless of how many holes it has. I don't think you can put a top limit on a 9 hole course anymore than you could cap the rating of an 18 hole course at 4.5.
And for the record, I don't think I've ever rated any 9 hole course higher than 3.5.
I stand corrected. I awarded my 6th ever five star rating last summer to Hillcrest DGC (18) in Bonshaw, Price Edward Island, Canada. Maybe it should be capped at 4 stars because it's an obscure course on a small Canadian Island Province?
Funny.
You could argue ad absurdum in the other direction---Can a 3-hole course be rated a 5? a 1-hole course?
Practically speaking, there is a threshold where the number of holes gives most players the sense of a full round, and which allows the designer to cover a significant variety of great hole designs so that most players, or at least most reviewers, find it to be one of the best. Is 18 the magic number? I don't know, or if it is I don't know why, but it seems to be for most players, or at least most reviewers. Beyond that threshold, additional holes offer a diminishing increase in value. Below it, though, is a deficit.
For a person for whom 9 holes is a great round of disc golf---a 9-hole course of great design might be a 5. But that person seems to be in a distinct minority.
For what it's worth my local course (Stoney Hill) had a noticeable uptick in ratings when it grew from 20 to 24 holes on one of the layouts. It wasn't as if the 4 newest holes were spectacular.
I'll keep drinking 4 and 6-packs of quality craft beer and leave the 24-packs of Budweiser products to the rest of the Americans, I'll put it that way.
Well said. I laugh when people talk about being "objective" in their reviews. I generally don't rate a 9 holer any different than an 18. Of course if you are looking for variety of holes an 18 has more chance for that but it doesn't always happen.
shakatak
Birdie Member
I played Atlantic on June 8th and it was PERFECT. I haven't reviewed it yet but it would be around a 4.5 if I do. Then I saw that the person you're referring to gave it a .5 disc review because there was too many other park users there. I don't really have a point other than it was a terrible review and it's good to know other people noticed that too.
While IMO the 'rating' aspect of this site is the worse thing it has / provides (and I will never be a part of such), to answer your question David...
...yes! Imagine your perfect hole. YOU would 'rate' it a 5-hole, right? Now add the same quality hole(s) to it. At what number do you NOW call the course a 5-course? Perfection is perfection...even if it is very small. Like one....
I'd rate it a 5.0 hole, but not a 5.0 course.
I always look at ratings as how much I'd prefer playing one course over another, if they were equal distances from me. And how I'd advise a friend who hasn't played either, and was asking me which he should play, or play first, assuming his temperament was like most disc golfers I've encountered.
The review is my description, and my theoretical friend can decide whether my description matches his tastes and desires.
I always look at ratings as how much I'd prefer playing one course over another, if they were equal distances from me. And how I'd advise a friend who hasn't played either, and was asking me which he should play, or play first, assuming his temperament was like most disc golfers I've encountered.
The review is my description, and my theoretical friend can decide whether my description matches his tastes and desires.
To use a bad metaphor, a bite of a great meal tastes as good as any other bite of it, but isn't as good as the entire meal.
An extra-large portion of that meal may or may not be better than a modest portion. There's a threshold which is enough, below which is insufficient, above which is only marginally better, if at all.
That's for me, and how I'd rate a meal. Everyone's tastes are different.
Where's this new one?
You spin me right round baby right round like a Wankel engine...
Oh. A course, or a great course? There's a 12-hole course near me that I play from time to time, which is fun enough that I can play a round and leave, but nobody would ever call it great. But it is a course.
We built Stoney Hill a hole at a time. At various times it was a 7-hole course, an 11-hole course, a 13-holer, a 17-holer.....but when we got to 18, it seemed like a full course. Those shorter versions were full of good holes, but they didn't quite seem complete.
There's nothing magic in the number 18, other than tradition---and the fact that so many other courses we play are 18 that it seems like a full course. 9-holers are rare around here and I played at least 10 years before I ever saw one.
That's one limitation of a 9-holer. The other, in regard to a great course, is a question of how much variety can it have? It's easier to get a wide mix of lengths, of elevation changes, of straight shots, RHBH hyzers, RHBH anhyzers, LHBH hyzers, LHBH anhyzers, ace-runs, par-3s, par-4s, par-5s, tight wooded shots, more open carved-through-the-woods shots, open-with-obstacle shots, open shots, big downhills, low ceilings, easy flat open greens and obstacle-filled straddle-putt greens and fast hillside greens, and all the other features you might incorporated, if you have 18 holes to do it in. Or, at least, as many as possible. To come up with 9 holes and present the same variety of challenges, and require the same range of shots, is a real test.
The best example of the potential I can come up with is the back-9 of Ashe County. I rate Ashe County a 5. If the front 9 were taken away and the back-9 kept as a 9-holer, I'd give it a 4......maybe a 4.5. That's probably my ceiling.
Five paragraphs and still no answer. Oh well....
But I know you know where I'm going with this. IF you were to give me an answer I'd then say what if it had each of its holes a 5-hole, would it not be a 5-course? And if not, how much of this other thing / intangible facet (diversity, etc.) is needed - or accounts for the difference on a per-hole basis - to push the needle to your 5?
But I know you know where I'm going with this. IF you were to give me an answer I'd then say what if it had each of its holes a 5-hole, would it not be a 5-course? And if not, how much of this other thing / intangible facet (diversity, etc.) is needed - or accounts for the difference on a per-hole basis - to push the needle to your 5?
9.
Probably not.
Subjective. I'll know it when I see it.
With the footnote that, if you take a ad absurdum hypothetical, it is possible that a 9-hole course could be so overwhelmingly excellent in features, design, and amenities to be the exception. If you could magically transport my 9 favorite holes from all the courses I've played, link them into one, and tweak them so that they covered enough variety, then, yeah, I'd probably give it a 5. That's a hypothetical of a 9-hole course built to a higher level than any course, of any length, that I've yet seen.
I've said somewhere, perhaps in this thread, though I don't care to check at the moment, that if it were to happen, it would probably be a private property owner building a course for himself, with terrific land and room for a good 18-hole course, but choosing to make a killer 9-holer instead.
There is a thread where Timg lists the things that can get a review pulled. One of them is not playing the entire course, or at least not playing a large portion of a said course, unless a couple of holes are under construction and playing all of the holes is impossible at the time. I have seen a few over the years sneak through, but for the most part Timg enforces the list.
Don't be knocking 9 holers, David lol ..jk - The rating system is flawed IMO. There should be two tiers of the rating system, maybe even three or four. Championship level, Regular play level, 9 holers (not sure that's a good name), and Entry/Kid level. I have a 9 basket, 27 tee course and I'm thrilled at the slightly above 3 disc rating it has now under the current rating system. I'd be hard pressed to rate a 9 holer 4.5 but I can see a wicked course with 9 holes getting a high rating if it was top notch.
Our 9-holer in Longmont has multiple tee positions. At our tourney last year, an even round netted a 998 rating.
