Courses EVERYONE loves except... You

[BraveThrower43]

Now you've done it. I dont think everyone LOVES the courses you mentioned...they are just afraid if they say they dont they wont be able to go and experience the vibe.

I know that's how I feel about it

 

[HeavyCritters]

I don't get all the tacky, man made obstacles, hanging baskets, hole in the ground baskets, artificial greens..., that some of these top rated courses have. Feels like miniature golf.

I scream "GIMMICK HOLE" whenever I see this stuff.

Totally detracts from the game, IMO.

 

[Stan McDaniel]

Shortening had nothing to do with whining Huey. All about time spent on the course. You have to strike a balance between the challenge and getting players to the next round on time or back to their hotels to prepare for festivities.
There will always be whining and complaining and dissenting opinions, dont take it personally.
I have always been perplexed by the incredible number of people who take me to task if we dont use the Nest in an event. I love the Nest but I also love our other courses too, including those I didnt design. I have always felt that the Nest hype is a bit overdone myself.

 

[1978]

I can understand and make accomodations but not like it Although, after playing the worlds courses this year the week before the tournament...time on the course did not appear to be as much a consideration as it was in 2012. A few of those courses were long, brutal...and Trojan's water, wow... Courses were a good distance apart.
Our shortened courses were relatively close to the hotel (with in 15 minutes).

Nest does NOT need to be used more in tournaments even though it is one of the most well rounded courses in Charlotte. IMO (which is > Grodney's)

 

[rhatton1]

I kind of echo your thoughts. Maybe it was because I didnt know the course at all but I wasn't a huge fan. I honestly think we should start all over with ratings and make them 0-10 scale. There should be more separation between a truly great course of 4.something and a middle of the road 3.

I would love to see a revamp of the rating system to a two tier system.

One rating for the amenities/how its looked after/anything non golf related and then the one I'm more interested in, the actual quality of the holes laid out in front of you.

The system as is is always going to be weighted against free to play courses and will mean people miss out on great golf locations as a result going to play to play that whilst amazingly looked after and with a number of other ways to add to your enjoyment might not provide the pure pleasure of the perfectly designed hole, a couple of 5 star holes on an otherwise 1 star course amenities wise would definitely be preferable for me to a 5 star amenities place made up of a number of 3 star holes.

I would love to see this as an out of 10 rating as well, the toss up whether to rate 3 or 4 is sometimes too close to really be happy with what you have given it, choosing between a 5,6,7 or 8 would be much easier for me.

 

[jmhoekst]

Both of you guys are off on this. Worlds is about appropriate tournament configurations, not necessarily the daily play layouts. We are fortunate that several of our courses are close to blue level tournament layouts so only a few changes were made on some courses. If you played Emporia the year before, their courses were tricked out with lots of additional OB. If you had never played Kaposia before Worlds, that layout would likely have been rated the the most challenging and appropriate course because it actually turned out that way based on the hole-by-hole stats produced from the event.

All previous Worlds have had one or two courses with SSAs several throws higher than any in the Twin Cities. Kaposia would have been seen as weak relative to its reputation by the out-of-town players if we had played any 18 combo of the regular holes. In fact, we would not have been allowed to play hole 5 in its regular configuration unless we did what we did stacking up three par 4s (26, 27>3, 1>4) in front of it to reduce the stack up there. It worked pretty well but hole 5 still generated a wait near the end of the rounds from what I understand. It turned out that Kaposia was the toughest course (even then only SSA 55) and did a good job spreading the scores among the contenders.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with you, Chuck. You have valid points about speed-of-play for worlds, but you put so much emphasis on scoring spread, scoring spread, scoring spread that you fail to see holes that are just dumb, unfair and reward the lucky.

Back on topic, though, I think Oak Island in Albert Lea, MN is highly overrated. Just because it's tough doesn't make it good. See my previous point.

 

[Cgkdisc]

This is where I fundamentally disagree with you, Chuck. You have valid points about speed-of-play for worlds, but you put so much emphasis on scoring spread, scoring spread, scoring spread that you fail to see holes that are just dumb, unfair and reward the lucky.

Such as? Frankly, we modified some of those holes with the tweaks we did for Am Worlds. And scoring spread is only one of the stats looked at. Luckiness can actually be measured along with several other more esoteric stats.

 

[jmhoekst]

Such as? Frankly, we modified some of those holes with the tweaks we did for Am Worlds. And scoring spread is only one of the stats looked at. Luckiness can actually be measured along with several other more esoteric stats.

Well, hole #3 at The Valley is the first that comes to mind. And hole #2a at Kenwood worlds layout, which to me is the defining hole for "scoring spread for the sake of scoring spread". Luckiness can be measured? I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by that.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hole 3 at The Valley is not my ideal for a hole design and I've said so before. However, if you take out any one of those trees, the hole essentially becomes wide open and there's no way to save it since it can't be made much longer. So it becomes an interesting risk reward hole where you can still play it safe to virtually guarantee a 3 if you choose to, or go for it. The gaps are smaller than ideal but they are visible and not fluky if you have the skill.

 

[Shooter14]

Pleasant view disc golf course in Russellville Arkansas, everyone who says they shoot better here than old post is a dirty liar. for some reason this course only eats your favorite disc

I hear ya, but I do shoot better there

I'm actually tagging along w abe and Sheldon and we're coming to the Mini sunday.

Should be fun. I rarely get to play those courses but I like being able to open up on Pleasant View. Down here where I'm at a 450'er is rare.

I think Pleasant view is that course for me that everyone loves and I hate. I like playing it though cause it's a challenge

 

[jjpitt29]

Such as? Frankly, we modified some of those holes with the tweaks we did for Am Worlds. And scoring spread is only one of the stats looked at. Luckiness can actually be measured along with several other more esoteric stats.

Many of the combined holes at kaposia fall into this "dumb" hole category if you ask me. I'm terrible with the numbers there or it would be easier. But hole 1, then hole in the woods (like number 12 or something) and the hockey rink hole were all bad holes, IMO. I'm sure the scoring spread was just wonderful, but that doesn't make a good hole by any means.

 

[jmhoekst]

Hole 3 at The Valley is not my ideal for a hole design and I've said so before. However, if you take out any one of those trees, the hole essentially becomes wide open and there's no way to save it since it can't be made much longer. So it becomes an interesting risk reward hole where you can still play it safe to virtually guarantee a 3 if you choose to, or go for it. The gaps are smaller than ideal but they are visible and not fluky if you have the skill.

Glad we agree that those gaps are fluky; that's a good start. I've never heard you say that before, sorry to make you repeat yourself. I have a lot more to say and we could go on all day, but this thread isn't the right place and I have to get to work. Cheers!

I would be curious, however, to hear from anybody who thinks Oak Island is a great course. There are a few awesome holes, but a handful of awful ones. Maybe it was just the "honeymoon" phase after it went in and the MN/IA discers are starting to wise-up.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Those combined holes did well from both a spread and fairness standpoint. The scores thrown on them correlated well with the final player rank which is an indication whether a hole contributed to or detracted from sorting players by skill. We were using existing fairways so if you think these holes were dumb you're basically saying the existing holes are dumb also. In the case of combo hole 14-15, that hole plays better than 14 by itself which is a tweener par 4. As pointed out before, there was no way 18 existing holes would have been used. So feel free to consider what other holes might have been combined to produce some par 4s and maintain good course flow.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I would love to see this as an out of 10 rating as well, the toss up whether to rate 3 or 4 is sometimes too close to really be happy with what you have given it, choosing between a 5,6,7 or 8 would be much easier for me.

Just take out the decimal and DGCR already has a 0-500 rating system!

 

[Rocaholic74]

I'm particularly not fond of Hickory Run up in Jim Thorpe, Pa. The tee pads horrible and uneven giving you a hope and pray feeling each time to come to a new hole. Besides a few holes, the course is mediocre at best IMHO. If they put some concrete tee pads in, it would make it a little more consistent.

Sedgley Woods gets bashed all the time by guys from my neck of the woods in PA. I absolutely love the course and think the work they put in on the tee pads were amazing.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I feel that Madeline-Bertrand in Niles, MI falls into this category but maybe not to the extent of "everyone" loves. I think if you drew a circle about 5 miles or so in radius originating at the park entrance I suspect that every disc golfer within the resulting circle is deeply in love with that course. Could be the result of chemicals in the local water supply...who knows. But talk to anyone outside of that that 10 mile diameter circle who have played at least one or two other courses and they either can't stand M-B or are very lukewarm about it.

It's rather amusing talking to some of the M-B locals about playing at other nearby courses and they scoff at the inferiority of said courses. lol. Personally, if I wasn't bothered with how the course is run, I'd probably play there occasionally. It's a short and fun beginnerish course IMHO...

 

[1978]

I would love to see a revamp of the rating system to a two tier system.

One rating for the amenities/how its looked after/anything non golf related and then the one I'm more interested in, the actual quality of the holes laid out in front of you.
The system as is is always going to be weighted against free to play courses and will mean people miss out on great golf locations as a result going to play to play that whilst amazingly looked after and with a number of other ways to add to your enjoyment might not provide the pure pleasure of the perfectly designed hole, a couple of 5 star holes on an otherwise 1 star course amenities wise would definitely be preferable for me to a 5 star amenities place made up of a number of 3 star holes.

I would love to see this as an out of 10 rating as well, the toss up whether to rate 3 or 4 is sometimes too close to really be happy with what you have given it, choosing between a 5,6,7 or 8 would be much easier for me.

I'd be confident to say most casual players don't understand what a good hole is or a good grouping of them. Shoot, even the top designers argue over that. You will still have someone rate a great long course down for it being hard and great short courses down for being too short...then the same with courses with to much or to little water, elevation, risk, open shots, wooded shots.

and nothing stops the regional bias or ingnorance you see by people loving their local courses or not understanding what else is out there in the world. You shouldnt be able to review a course with under 10-15 courses played.
Allowing quarter ratings allows similar rating freedom without drastically changing the # system system.

 

[Improbably]

I'm particularly not fond of Hickory Run up in Jim Thorpe, Pa. The tee pads horrible and uneven giving you a hope and pray feeling each time to come to a new hole. Besides a few holes, the course is mediocre at best IMHO. If they put some concrete tee pads in, it would make it a little more consistent.

I'm particularly not fond of Hickory Run either. The tees never struck me as bad, but I have helped to resurface a few of them to make them better.

It's my least favorite of the courses local to me precisely because it's "everyone's" most favorite. All the local events, other than the ones I TD, happen there. Locals want to spend club funds to put more baskets on holes that can't be played half of the year because of picnickers. Seems asinine to develop the crowded parts of the course. But then again it's easy to plant a basket in open space as opposed to getting park permission and organizing the work to clear wooded area.

 

[sidewinder22]

I'd be confident to say most casual players don't understand what a good hole is or a good grouping of them. Shoot, even the top designers argue over that. You will still have someone rate a great long course down for it being hard and great short courses down for being too short...then the same with courses with to much or to little water, elevation, risk, open shots, wooded shots.

and nothing stops the regional bias or ingnorance you see by people loving their local courses or not understanding what else is out there in the world. You shouldnt be able to review a course with under 10-15 courses played.
Allowing quarter ratings allows similar rating freedom without drastically changing the # system system.

Agreed. You really have to filter through reviews and find ones you trust.

 

[optidiscic]

out of towners can be pretty biased as well

often nitpicking because they got lost or being unfamiliar with different types of disc golf design and most often they play a course once didnt have a good time and they trash the course in a review

often these traveling players dont understand how a course fits in with the region, why holes are designed as they are and why a course is layed out the way it is

As for courses I just do not get the hype about......I was underwhelmed by Hornets Nest and to a lesser degree Bracketts Bluff
Great courses and good times but the hype meter is off the charts
That being said if I hadnt heard so much hype I think I may have been pleasantly surprised

I do not get the intense praise for Patapsco...maybe I missed something