Best DG in the Country (2017 Edition)

[New013]

One guy is upset because high rated courses factor to much, one is upset quantity is to much.

One guy says hey the ring is to big, courses can be an hour apart. One guy says it should be bigger.

One guy says 2.5 courses shouldn't be used....
They aren't... what you talking bout Willis.

Also I don't live in Charlotte and hardly ever go there, pump yo brakes.

 

[New013]

Also if places can overlap extensively you could arguably make all 25 spots come out of five areas... that's dumb. You could maybe get them all out of just DFW and Charlotte.

Some do overlap.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

So you remember that time I made the thread about my sister doing the stats project and I suggested she use the course database and she did and then she came up with the best places to live for high quality disc golf based on a 30 mile radius?

Well I have been super bored at work lately and I just updated it. If you don't know what I'm talking about go here https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81083.

The basics are for a course to qualify it has to be in a 30 mile radius from the little red X on the map. It also has to have 5+ reviews and be rated a 3.0 or higher. I also did my super best to not let courses overlap between places except for a select few where they were basically both 30 miles from the X and it was one course overlapping. For the top 30 places I found I also used the browse function to attempt to locate courses not on the map. All the courses within said radius are added and multiplied by the square of the average rating.

Sum * Avg^2

The city listed is either the biggest city near the X or whatever name is nearest the X where there is no big city that close to it. The X's are almost never directly on the dot where the city is located, it's in the premium position to accrue the highest score. Also the <# or ># indicates how many places the city went down <# or up ># from the original list. In cases where the X moved and a different town/city is listed use your brain to figure it out I've done enough.

The following is the Top 25 places for super high quality disc golf. If you don't like how this is done I super don't care it's a list it's made for us to argue about. So argue.

1. Charlotte, NC 1400 >1
2. DFW, TX 1332 <1
3. Quakertown, PA 1159 >8
4. Kansas City, MO 1096 >1
5. Augusta, ME 1071 >1
6. Minneapolis, MN 950 <2
7. Chicago, IL 875 >6
8. St. Louis, MO 837 >17
9. Cincinnati, OH 804 >8
10. Farmington Mills, MI 800 <7
11. Denver, CO 786 <4
12. Worcester, MA 782 <3
13. Portland, OR 772 <1
14. Austin, TX 755 <6
15. Chapel Hill, NC 739 >19
16. Houston, TX 732 >6
17. Atlanta, GA 730 <2
18. Lake Tahoe, CA 724 >6
19. Lancaster, PA 652 <3
20. Tulsa, OK 642 <10
21. Seattle, WA 598 >11
22. Hart, MI 598 <4
23. Reedsville, WI 594 >NR
25. Indianapolis, IN 582 >13

 

[New013]

All of that is factually incorrect except the hand gestures and the dolphin pic. Those are spot on.

 

[pauldst]

Des Moines, Iowa didn't make the list?

Des Moines isn't even the best place in Iowa... IOWA

Centering east of Iowa City puts a lot of good courses within 50 miles, most in Iowa, but includes the Quad Cities, too.

I'm not sure who wants to argue but, Chicago in the top ten makes me think reviewers need to get out more. Really? Higher than portland, cincy, Tahoe and austin??

Besides reviewer bias, there is also the effect of fewer ratings because of the expectation to write a detailed review. There are a lot of courses that I have not rated because I didn't feel that I could write anything that doesn't just duplicate what has already been said, and I don't feel like having to write all that much sometimes, anyway.

I was not surprised to see California on there other than Tahoe, where the Nevada courses probably make the difference. Some good courses here, but not very concentrated, and there are a lot of mediocre ones.

Someone else mentioned the problem of having a radius with little in the middle, but a lot around the edges. I've seen that in places, and would not consider that anywhere near ideal. I would much rather a have some decent courses within 10 miles than a bunch of great ones that were half an hour away. The former can get played several times a week, if not daily, while the latter might happen only once or twice a week, and in some weather, none. Plus, it maybe should be considered where one would actually live, what it would cost, the quality of life, and traffic. The center of a ring with the courses out at the edge might mean living on a farm, or in the middle of a city where there is so much traffic that 30 miles takes over an hour to drive. Chicago, Philadelphia, most of California, etc., housing might be rather unaffordable, scarce, in a bad area, etc.

Anyway, whatever the discussion, quibbling, or objections, thanks for the list!

 

[New013]

What was used for Reedsville, WI? The best I have been able to get was in the 400's only.

Rollin Ridge
Winnebago Green
Lower Cato Falls
Grignon
O'Hauser
LTC Cleveland
Plamann Apple
Jaycee Park
Silver Creek
Vollrath
Triangle Sports
Winter Park

There ain't **** in the city of Chicago. If you said Joliet, that would make more sense. Also, The Canyons blows away Highland and its not close. Leaving off hotspots like Davenport, IA (Quad Cities) or Des Moines, IA and having Chicago on this list makes it just nonsensical. If you were in Chicago it would take over an hour drive to find a course that is 4 stars.

As Mr. Sauls pointed out, I pointed out that most of the time the city named is just the nearest known city if it's pretty close or the X is essentially in it's suburbs which for Chicago is a pretty big area. The X is actually at Orlando Park which is about 20 miles from the Chicago DOT. There are two 4 star courses about 10 miles from there... it might take you an hour because of traffic and I never said this factored that in.

Yes, but the goal was the best place to live for high quality disc golf. I had an internship in Chicago for 3 months and to try to get a round of disc golf in somewhere was absolutely BRUTAL. There are hundreds of cities that would be preferable over Chicago if you are looking to play a lot of disc golf.

I've never lived in Chicago but I'm guessing traffic IN CHICAGO is brutal and I'm guessing any course near the city is crushed with chuckers. However Orlando Park has a solid grouping of courses very near it, not on the 30 mile edge as some seem to chalk all of them up to.

I'll also point out that in the 30 mile radius from Orlando Park there are 18 courses that are considered "Good" or better. That's the 4th most courses in the radius and it ties Augusta, ME, Minneapolis, MN, St. Louis, MO and Cincinnati, OH. Orlando Park actually has a higher average than the last two.

Now check their scores, there is a 267 point score between the 1st and 5th area that all have the exact same amount of qualifying courses. That's a pretty big difference for something that doesn't factor in... quality.

That's the trouble with using "within a radius". You tend to find places with a ring of courses out near the edge of the radius. Use a radius of 125 miles and you'd think a boat in the middle of Lake Michigan is the best place.

We argued this the first time Steve and if you remember I agreed with you that it definitely should be weighted from the marker to be the most accurate. My sister created all of this and she doesn't even care about disc golf she was just trying to get a grade. However as you know getting all these stats together takes time and I was just doing this in my down time because I literally had nothing else to do. I don't have the desire to take enough time to go back and weight them while also figuring out the optimum spots for the weighting.

I do however disagree when you say, well just go to 125 miles. That doesn't make sense, most of these places are metropolitan areas and 30 miles in such an area isn't really that far for a day trip. I've driven that far to play doubles or just with people I know a **** ton. 125 miles from a spot is generally not a day trip or your average going to play a course today... neither is 60 miles.

I also take issue with your use of "problem". At the end of the day it's a preference thing and we're all going to be different. Some people might rather have one great course right next to them and 10 solid courses about half hour away. Some people might rather have 10 solid courses next to them and one great one a half hour away.

Say there's an area with 1 great course 60 miles east of a place with 6 just good courses. Pick where you'd rather live... Do you live way in the east so you got 1 great course and have to drive 60 miles to play anything else? Do you live way in the west with 6 okay courses and a 60 mile drive to a great course. Or do you live more towards the middle where you have the option to go either way and not have to drive 60 miles anytime you feel like changing things up? It's a preference, not a problem.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't think Steve was advocating for a 125-mile radius. I took as just a vivid illustration of a ring.

 

[1978]

Suck it DFW! CLT 4 lyfe! No really, DFW crew, I land in DFW at 5:55pm on Wednesday night. Where should I play that night (after I grab my rental car)?

Hopefully somewhere with precipices/water to the right of every basket.

 

[New013]

Well, in claiming that your list is a ranking of the top place for "super high quality" disc golf, you are advertising a ranking whose method really doesn't add up to that. However, it makes more sense given your number one and your location.

Actually it does a decent job of it, I just don't think you math well. As was already pointed out by somebody else who was complaining that the quantity isn't represented well enough, 10 3.5 rated courses would score lower than 5 4.5 rated courses. If this doesn't factor in quality then how could that be?

ATL ended up in 17th place with a score of 730. ATL has 17 qualifying courses with an average of 3.572. There are 7 areas ahead of ATL that all have less qualifying courses; Portland and Denver both have 13 qualifying courses (4 less) and are 42 and 56 points ahead of ATL respectively.

Denver is only 18 points behind Cincy and Cincy has 5 more courses than Denver. Yes we all know Denver peeps are full of it with their course ratings that's another discussion . How could these things be true if it doesn't factor in quality?

you truly want to tease out the "super high quality" of a location, then you should start by not limiting it to 30 miles or using any component in your equation that simply counts the number of courses. Why would a course with a 2.5 rating be factored into such a calculation at all other than to just allow the quantity of courses to affect the ranking? Also, why would you care about overlap? Either a location fits the criteria or not?

This maketh no senseth. First you have to limit it to a distance unless you weight distance which I addressed with Steve already. I also addressed that anything more than 30 miles is more than your typical I'm going to play today while doing other things besides this kind of deal... especially because many of these are in metropolitan areas.

2.5 courses are not factored in.

This equation does not simply count courses as I already pointed out. The average is squared to specifically boost quality while also acknowledging having more courses considered good or better is still an advantage over another area. One more example is Dike, TX and Rochester, NY. Dike has 5 qualifying courses and Rochester has 9; almost twice as many. They scored the same score. If quality isn't a factor then that would never happen. Now if your argument is I'd rather live in Dike, TX with those 5 than Rochester, NY with those 9 that's a valid argument but some disagree, like the dude who commented earlier.

so many factors unrelated to quality in your formula, it almost looks like you designed it specifically to make one location look better than others . . . . .

SO MANY!!! there's three factors. Distance, Sum and Average. Distance only determines how many courses are in the equation, not whether quality or quantity is weighted heavier. The sum does lean towards weighting for quality but also factors in quality because a place with higher quality will add up faster with fewer courses. The average exclusively factors in quality and it is squared. So basically both weighting factors account for quality and the one that is exclusively about quality is squared to weight even more.

better way to measure would be simply counting the number of courses rated 3.75 or higher within a 60 mile radius. Why 60 miles? Because, in most cases, that is going to be about an hour drive. It is also a more realistic criteria for a traveling golfer which makes this method less about how awesome you think it is where you live as opposed to where you might like to travel to play. 60 miles also eliminates any Lake Michigan ferries.

So the admittedly incomplete, non-Charlotte-biased list that only counts high quality courses within 60 miles of a location comes up with:

1. Portland, ME 19
2. Denver 16
2. Lansing 16
4. Dallas 15
5. Philadelphia 13
6. Tahoe City 12
6. Charlotte 12
8. Hartford 11
8. Worcester 11
8. Milwaukee 11
11. Baltimore 10
12. Chicago 10
13. Detroit 10
14. Springfield, MA 9
14. Columbus, OH 9
14. Muskegon 9
14. Buffalo 9
18. Austin 8
19. Madison 8

I never said this was about traveling golfers, if anything it's more about people that live there. I do think this list can be a helpful tool for traveling golfers but admit it's not the end all be all of where to go. It just combines things I like such as lists, silly stats, disc golf courses and pissing people off not from NC who are envious that we are the best.

...and wait, you complained about a list just adding up courses then said here's a better list that just added up courses not factoring in which places have a higher average? Hmmm...

My thought was that if you are looking for the number of high quality courses, then just list the number of high quality courses. I can usually only pay 3-4 courses, at most, on my typical trips so 100 courses rated below 3.75 is no lure to me. In fact, 3-4 4.5 courses is better for me no matter the total.

Wait so now you admit this list is exactly for you because places with a few high quality courses are better than a place with a bunch of just good courses and this list boosts places with a high average? Sweet thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[New013]

This is also where I admit I totally ****ed up just like when I left Highbridge off the first list. I'm surprised nobody caught it.

Augusta, GA is actually 19th on the list.

I must of overlapped it with Augusta, ME at some point and left it out.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

FTFY

I'd rather troll DGCR than play either 10 3.5 rated courses or 5 4.5 rated courses.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Also I don't live in Charlotte and hardly ever go there, pump yo brakes.

Do you still live in Fu**** Va*ina?

Spoiler

Fuquay Varina

 

[DavidSauls]

This is also where I admit I totally ****ed up just like when I left Highbridge off the first list. I'm surprised nobody caught it.

Augusta, GA is actually 19th on the list.

I must of overlapped it with Augusta, ME at some point and left it out.

I wondered about Augusta, GA, but was too lazy do the math myself.

 

[Steve West]

...It's a preference, not a problem.

The first step in making a statistic is defining the question you are trying to answer. I don't mean specifying the formula, but what actions will be affected by the answer?

When you skip that step, everyone can point out that you are wrong. When you include that step, it tells you how to pick preferences and all the other aspects of the statistic.

For example, I set out to find out which locations for a new course would produce more traffic. To do that, I needed to find a formula for how much a player will play, based on how many courses are how close. The side effect was that I could rank locations by how often someone living there would play. Because I was looking at the total population activity, I was able to calibrate the preferences by polling a number of players who had kept track of their rounds and whose locations were known. I fit the weights to best reproduce those polls.

Also, I did not use the rating of the courses, because it turned out that ratings didn't affect how often people played. (Ratings are also very closely tied to number of holes.) People just play the courses near where they are, more at the bigger ones.

If I was finding the place with the best courses, I'd probably think of it as the place where a player living there would play some function of more rounds at the higher rated courses. I'm not sure how I would balance more vs. higher rated. Which means I would need to go back and better define why I'm finding the place with the best courses.

If I were finding the best place to visit for a course-poaching vacation, I would not be looking at an area, but a "string" of courses that could all be hit with a minimum of travel from course to course. For a huge example, driving all of I-35 might be a better trip than visiting WI.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

...and wait, you complained about a list just adding up courses then said here's a better list that just added up courses not factoring in which places have a higher average? Hmmm...

Wait so now you admit this list is exactly for you because places with a few high quality courses are better than a place with a bunch of just good courses and this list boosts places with a high average? Sweet thanks for agreeing with me.

Interesting tactics . . . I know facts are hard things to understand, let alone master, and you have illustrated why the failure to understand what you are doing can lead to false confidence that your formula, rooted in the misunderstanding, can lead to a false sense of righteousness. As you might imagine, I suspect that your righteousness is somewhat less than genuine.

You are using a mean based formula to putatively describe "super high quality." For example, if an area has three different 5.0 rated courses and three different 2.0 rated courses, it's average is going to be 3.5 (73.5 score). If another area has 6 3.75 rated courses, it will have a higher average and higher score (84.35) under your method. While it is debatable which area has the best disc golf courses, on average, there is little question which area has the most "super high quality" disc golf courses.

Claiming that a 2.5 rating courses aren't a part of your score is perhaps the most blatant indicator that maybe math is a little bit harder than you might have imagined. Every course is part of the course number multiplier (sum) no matter how bad it is. Squaring the average appears to do nothing more than inflate the totals to provide the appearance of separation. Eliminating the need to square the average would result in the same ranking albeit with different scores.

Sum and distance have nothing to do with quality. That's 2/3 of what you claim your formula to be (leaving out the apparently arbitrary assignment of overlapping courses to one area or another, also not quality related). The other third is an average with a meaningless exponent. An average that includes, just like the multiplier, every bad course, every mediocre course and every good one, and, yes, every 2.5 rated one - not just "super high quality" ones. Your formula doesn't describe a ranking of "super high quality" disc golf. It only identifies what area has the highest average ranking times the most courses not shared with another area unless its the area you want the claim the shared one.

Whatever your motives for creating your formula, they don't appear to be what you say they are any more than you formula describes what you claim it does. If you want to fix the formula, then start by only counting courses with a minimum rating that you think makes up the lowest rating for "super high quality." And get rid of the square, it does nothing but add a meaningless step that doesn't change the ranking.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

If I were finding the best place to visit for a course-poaching vacation, I would not be looking at an area, but a "string" of courses that could all be hit with a minimum of travel from course to course. For a huge example, driving all of I-35 might be a better trip than visiting WI.

Proximity to each other within reasonable distance from a city with an airport served by at least regional jets would be my consideration. I would also discount distance based on the rating of the course - being willing to travel further if the course is worth it. Especially if I were going to describe my formula as having something to do with "super high quality" disc golf. I'd happily drive four hours to play Flip City. A 9-hole pitch and putt course needs to be behind security.

 

[Steve West]

Proximity to each other within reasonable distance from a city with an airport served by at least regional jets would be my consideration. I would also discount distance based on the rating of the course - being willing to travel further if the course is worth it. Especially if I were going to describe my formula as having something to do with "super high quality" disc golf. I'd happily drive four hours to play Flip City. A 9-hole pitch and putt course needs to be behind security.

I'm guessing the 3.15 rated Fort Snelling course is close enough to MSP?

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=62735&stc=1&d=1502909497

 

[Thrillogy]

Rollin Ridge
Winnebago Green
Lower Cato Falls
Grignon
O'Hauser
LTC Cleveland
Plamann Apple
Jaycee Park
Silver Creek
Vollrath
Triangle Sports
Winter Park



As Mr. Sauls pointed out, I pointed out that most of the time the city named is just the nearest known city if it's pretty close or the X is essentially in it's suburbs which for Chicago is a pretty big area. The X is actually at Orlando Park which is about 20 miles from the Chicago DOT. There are two 4 star courses about 10 miles from there... it might take you an hour because of traffic and I never said this factored that in.



I've never lived in Chicago but I'm guessing traffic IN CHICAGO is brutal and I'm guessing any course near the city is crushed with chuckers. However Orlando Park has a solid grouping of courses very near it, not on the 30 mile edge as some seem to chalk all of them up to.

I'll also point out that in the 30 mile radius from Orlando Park there are 18 courses that are considered "Good" or better. That's the 4th most courses in the radius and it ties Augusta, ME, Minneapolis, MN, St. Louis, MO and Cincinnati, OH. Orlando Park actually has a higher average than the last two.

Now check their scores, there is a 267 point score between the 1st and 5th area that all have the exact same amount of qualifying courses. That's a pretty big difference for something that doesn't factor in... quality.



We argued this the first time Steve and if you remember I agreed with you that it definitely should be weighted from the marker to be the most accurate. My sister created all of this and she doesn't even care about disc golf she was just trying to get a grade. However as you know getting all these stats together takes time and I was just doing this in my down time because I literally had nothing else to do. I don't have the desire to take enough time to go back and weight them while also figuring out the optimum spots for the weighting.

I do however disagree when you say, well just go to 125 miles. That doesn't make sense, most of these places are metropolitan areas and 30 miles in such an area isn't really that far for a day trip. I've driven that far to play doubles or just with people I know a **** ton. 125 miles from a spot is generally not a day trip or your average going to play a course today... neither is 60 miles.

I also take issue with your use of "problem". At the end of the day it's a preference thing and we're all going to be different. Some people might rather have one great course right next to them and 10 solid courses about half hour away. Some people might rather have 10 solid courses next to them and one great one a half hour away.

Say there's an area with 1 great course 60 miles east of a place with 6 just good courses. Pick where you'd rather live... Do you live way in the east so you got 1 great course and have to drive 60 miles to play anything else? Do you live way in the west with 6 okay courses and a 60 mile drive to a great course. Or do you live more towards the middle where you have the option to go either way and not have to drive 60 miles anytime you feel like changing things up? It's a preference, not a problem.

Orland Park?

 

[Countchunkula]

Orland Park?

New, we know not this Orlando Park of which you speak.

 

[New013]

New, we know not this Orlando Park of which you speak.

Orland park, it gets autocorrected.

It's on the map about 15 miles SW of chicagos dot