Course ratings: Do we rate as they are now, or based on potential?

[t i m]

I have noticed that on some courses there seem to be a lot of people basing their ratings on "course potential" rather than on the actual course as it exists today. Case in point, playing through Gateway Park - West in Fort Worth, TX, recently made me start thinking about this in a lot more detail.

To me, ratings should be based on how a course plays as of the time of the review. If a course has a lot of potential -- but hasn't lived up to it yet -- then it shouldn't get high ratings based on potential. It should get revised ratings once it achieves its potential. I think the fact that it is growing into its potential should be included in the review, but it is very misleading for a person to review a course based on what it WILL BE rather than what it IS.

Thoughts?

 

[cc0049]

I think that it depends on what your knowledge is of the course when you write the review. If you are unfamiliar with the course and the work that is currently underway on it, then you should review it as is. If you are well aware of where the course is headed in the immediate future, then I think it is perfectly fine to take that into account. The people writing the reviews really should be the people that have the most knowledge of the course, but it is always useful to have insight from people out of town. It all balances out I think.
My best example is Circle C in Austin. When I played it, it was not in great shape and I had a miserable experience there. I heard that there were some changes that would be taking place there, but not being "in the know", I rated it "as is". Now, I hear that there are changes that have made it much better. However, until I get the opportunity to get down there and play it again, I cannot update my review. Someone who reads my review now, may find it to be innaccuarte...but what are you gonna do. At the time I wrote it, it was useful as a warning to those that were driving a great distance to play it.

 

[Camgolfer]

Once a course is revised and redesigned then a new review section should be added. Giving a course a better review based on potential is like giving a bad movie a good review based on its potential to put out a better sequel. Rate the course as you played it.

 

[srm_520]

I think if a reviewer is comfortable with the course, has knowledge of things that may be changed on the course, or see certain potentials in the future - it deserves to be mentioned in the review. However, a grade is a grade - when a student turns in an assignment, you give them a grade based on the work presented. They if they were to redo it, and then you redo the grade - same goes for a course review.

Jack Brooks Park - Course #2 is a great example of this. If I were to write a review today (which now I could since I have a map) I could talk about the design, layout, and hole quality, but they are still in the process of putting in tee boxes and signage. I would give it a grade, and then mention these things that are still happening. Then, once they were completed - I would simply regrade the course and update my review.

 

[billnchristy]

If a course is considered to be "in progress" (Example, Victor lord DGC in Winder GA) then I would consider the potential. (And I did).

If the course is finished, crappy, and simply could be better...probably not.

That being said...maybe a half a star or something for potential...nothing crazy.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

This isn't the NBA draft. You rate on how it is now, not on potential. Now if you play a course 2 days after a hurricane passes through town, that's another matter.

 

[Three Putt]

As a general rule I'm avoiding rating new courses unless concrete tees are in place and the design seems final.

Two courses opened in The Lou this year, Rocksprings in Alton, IL and Unger in Fenton, MO. Rocksprings has already been hit with a devastating storm that downed several big trees, so some of those holes (which were never finalized anyway) may be moved. It still needed some fairways cleaned up before the storm anyway. I don't feel comfortable rating it until it is 100% done, becasue I'm not exactly sure what they plan to do to it.

Unger was a clear case of ignoring what you know. It was known that the park floods every spring, yet the course was set aggressively along the banks of Unger Lake. When I played it I was wondering not what happens if it floods, but what happens when it floods. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the area could tell you that flooding was a foregone conclusion. A few weeks ago it went under water. Can you say "duh?" Either that course is going to be significantly redesigned or it is going to be closed for several weeks every spring due to flooding, both of which would effect the way I rate the course. Either way, my feedback on my perceptions of that course from March are going to end up being rather suspect, so I'm going to wait until I know more before I rate it.

By doing that I can avoid rating the courses on "potential." Based on potential, they both would rate very high. I don't feel like giving a course a "4" based on its potential. If I'm giving a course a 3.5 or higher, it's going to be based on how that course is today, not how good it might be down the road.

If you are from out of town, it's kind-of hard to know it that is the case with a course or not. I try to pay attention to the year established. I also use the year established when I rate pitch and putts. Pitch and putts from the early 80's have an excuse and I'm not so harsh on them. 21st Century pitch and putts feel my wrath.

 

[tamahawk]

I always review a course "as is". An example is my review of Meade Olin. I rated the course a 2of5, even though it is more like a 4. The main reasoning was, if I review this course as a 4, and someone who has never played this course reads my review and goes there expecting a great experience, I felt like they would be disappointed.

I was very open in my review about why the course was in the condition that it was, and that I expected it to be a 4+ course when the clean-up and revisions were complete, but again, I had to be completely honest about the course as it was. Some updates have been made, but there is still some work in progress. As soon as the course is finished, I will play the course again, and update my review accordingly.

 

[cc0049]

This isn't the NBA draft. You rate on how it is now, not on potential. Now if you play a course 2 days after a hurricane passes through town, that's another matter.

It's not really another matter. Either you rate it "as it is when you played it" or you don't according to this poll...or you choose option 3, which is essentially useless information.

 

[giles]

In your review of Gateway I think you were dead on. I played it once when they brought out baskets for a Funkytown Tag challenge and it was essentially unplayed prior to that day. I haven't been back and will not go back for at least another year. (if I lived closer I would be more than willing to help work on the course)

 

[DSCJNKY]

I like that so many trusted reviewers are chiming in on this (trying to get there myself). It shows that the people who really try to write good reviews care. I know I put a lot of time and effort into my reviews so they will be helpful and paint an accurate description of what you're going to get when you get there.

As for the question:
srm 520 (post #4) said: "I think if a reviewer is comfortable with the course, has knowledge of things that may be changed on the course, or see certain potentials in the future - it deserves to be mentioned in the review. However, a grade is a grade - when a student turns in an assignment, you give them a grade based on the work presented. If they were to redo it, and then you redo the grade - same goes for a course review."

Sums it up pretty good.
DSCJNKY

 

[cc0049]

I have noticed that on some courses there seem to be a lot of people basing their ratings on "course potential" rather than on the actual course as it exists today. Case in point, playing through Gateway Park - West in Fort Worth, TX, recently made me start thinking about this in a lot more detail.Thoughts?

In my review of Gateway, I did make mention of the potential of the course, because it will get better over time. However the potential of the course did not really make my rating of it go up...it only kept me from lowering my rating based on some of the cons that will not exist after some time and really do not affect my personal experience there in a negative way. Some of those "cons" are part of what makes the course extra challenging right now, which is a "pro" to me. I am thinking that as the course gets more well played and the fairways lighten up some, it will be an easier course, thus the rating will even itself back out over time anyway...or go up. I dont see it going down anymore than it is now though.
I gave Gateway a 4 initially based on my experience playing there. After reading your review, Tim, I realized that I had overlooked the fact that I had the privledge of playing the course the first few times with a guide to help navigate. Without, that, I'm sure my experience would have been much different. I have updated my rating to a 3.5 with that in consideration.
I would not rate it higher now in anticipation of better signage, but I think that I'd be more inclined to rate higher in anticipation of foliage, briars, etc being cleared.

 

[cc0049]

As objective as we'd like for our reviews to be, there is definitely a lot of subjectivity to them that is difficult to avoid. This is especially true when you base your rating on your "experience" playing the course. There are so many factors that affect your experience that have little to do with the actual course...humidity, bugs, wind, etc.

 

[Greg Layton]

I believe it should be rated based on how it looked when you played it. Considering how the course would look/play to someone passing through playing the course for the first (and probably only) time is also a good way to approach things.

 

[PA_Disc]

I agree on rating the course as played.

On the heels of this idea of future potential, do you think it would be a good idea to have a "suggestion" / "what would you like to see" comment box on the review pages? I think that then it would give the local course clubs a good vibe on how their courses could be improved.

 

[cc0049]

I think that is a great idea. Tim, are you listening?

I agree on rating the course as played.

On the heels of this idea of future potential, do you think it would be a good idea to have a "suggestion" / "what would you like to see" comment box on the review pages? I think that then it would give the local course clubs a good vibe on how their courses could be improved.

 

[t i m]

As objective as we'd like for our reviews to be, there is definitely a lot of subjectivity to them that is difficult to avoid. This is especially true when you base your rating on your "experience" playing the course. There are so many factors that affect your experience that have little to do with the actual course...humidity, bugs, wind, etc.

Chris,
Totally agreed. Thanks for looking back -- I've had to update and change a few of my own course ratings before based on people who have made comments to me after the fact. One course I played up in PA -- Whispering Falls -- I gave an enthusiastic 4.5-rating to after playing there once. When I played it, the course was in all long pin positions and was in great shape.

I got feedback from someone who went there in part based on my review, and was disappointed. I've gone back since and replayed it when it was mostly in shorts and I was similarly disappointed. It is a course that deserves no better than a 3.5 in short pins, but in long pins it might deserve that 4.5, so I compromised with a 4.0 rating, and included the breakdown in my revised review.

It was a case where my first impression was a best-case scenario that doesn't represent the course in the everyday layout and format.

I'm guessing that at Gateway, I had the opposite experience -- I got it at a worst case scenario. Holes rearranged so they don't match the map, hot day, ticks, bugs, 110% humidity, third round of the day, injured knee, lack of sleep, low food, not enough fluids, etc... I'm perfectly aware that on a different day I might have rated the course higher. Most days it probably would have gotten a 3.0, simply because I love hard courses. In this case, if I hadn't spent so much time wandering down pointless paths in the woods (i.e., if I'd had a guide), I almost certainly would have given it a 3.0.

In fact, I'm updating my review right now based on thinking through it again. 3.0 it is. With a big disclaimer that this course should not be played without a guide the first time through, at least until new signage is put in to point people from hole to hole. Stupid paths to nowhere in the woods are terrible. I seldom get upset playing disc golf, but I was getting very annoyed with whoever put Gateway Park in the ground and didn't put "to next tee" signs everywhere -- or at least at the forks in the path.

So thanks for your feedback and for forcing me to rethink this course. Challenge is worth a lot, and this course does offer challenge. It just asks a high price in time and energy that doesn't offer the ROI I've come to expect from other courses with a similar SSA.

 

[mashnut]

I personally give a rating that reflects the course when I played it, then mention things like potential in my review. I think the numerical rating should be as objective as possible, but I think including information about how the course is likely to change is useful for players who might visit the course.

 

[Dillon_Gourley]

You rate the course "as is" , as is in the time you played it. Write in the review "course is undergoing changes".

That's also why there is a update review link.

 

[magictenor1]

I always rate as is. where you talk about the course you can mention potential and circumstances. I reviewed Paul B Johnson after Hurricane katrina and it had some issues due to damage. I rated it as is but noted the difficulties it was having. when everything is back to normal you can update your review.