Dave242's Review of Idlewild

[ZMan44]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, as someone who has played both courses, i strongly disagree with the comparison of Renny Gold and Idlewild. Renny Gold is a solid layout. it is really long and demanding. And while it is longer there are more "open" holes than at Idlewild. Personally, I found Idlewild to be much more challenging and with better groundskeeping. To say Renny Gold is immensely more difficult is an overstatement. They are both difficult, but Idlewild is much tougher in my book.

The other thing that Dave242 said that didn't make any sense was complaining about "no testosterone" throws. The he puts Lincoln Ridge/Banklick on a pedestal. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I like Banklick a lot but it is not a "bomber's" course by any means. Very short and technical.

As I previously said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I don't advocate someone calling another reviewer out on the forums. But I can see giving the mentioned review a "not helpful". Not because it doesn't contain some viable information, but because it contains a lot of exaggerations and misstatements. And these things seem inserted for the reason of degradation. This guy has played a lot of courses, but he has fawned over a few of the NC courses in his reviews. My guess is that NC is his favorite area (no shame in that) and that this review was written in an attempt attain "props" for those courses. He just chose to do this at the expense of idlewild.

Otherwise, who cares? We all review and share our opinions.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Technically #3 isn't an island hole...it is a peninsula.

Gotta love it! This reminded me of a Simpsons episode where Lisa dreams she's sentenced to Monster Island. After being told don't worry, the name is misleading, she finds out it's actually a peninsula. I just might have to watch that episode when I get home tonight.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

This is a slippery slope with calling people out in public threads is that you open yourself up to criticism. For example, in LStephens' review of Mesker Park in Evansville, he says "the locals are some of the best...most down to earth people I've ever met. The local scene is very enthusiastic and the people there will literally give you the shirt off their backs."

Are they really the most down to earth? Will they really give me their shirt? If I play there and neither of these statements are true, I guess I'd have to vote not helpful and start a thread on that review too.

The big picture, in what I feel and I think most of the others feel in this thread and others about ratings, is that there's nothing wrong with giving a course a grade that's either really high or really low compared to the overall average, so long as they have real substance in their reasoning. Most of us have issues with the people who mark a course much lower and have a 2 sentence review that saying they didn't like the course. Same thing for those who rate every hometown course a 5, because it's their hometown course. You may not like the reasons for Dave's review, or others for that matter, but I think this site is much better when people give honest, thoughtful reviews that may go against the flow more than all the reviews that just agree with previous reviews.

 

[zenbot]

 

[thinknic]

you could probably have saved a bunch of time....

'was this review helpful?' ... that's where you click 'no'

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Boom goes the dynamite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W45DRy7M1no

 

[LStephens]

Opinions are what this site is all about....false information and dishonesty should be called out. If anyone can come on here and write drivel without being held accountable..then the website becomes useless and will spiral into oblivion as a site that is discounted as a unreliable source of accurate information.

When I travel I take my laptop and plug it into my phone...and I can log on here and find above average courses that are on my way to my destination. When I need a break after 6+ hours of straight driving...I'll find a course and pull over for a little stretch time...and then continue on my way. If I miss a gem of a course because I read a long post blasting it and saying it was substandard and misled me with what I thought was accurate factual data...that is a loss to me...and I don't like the thought of that.

 

[LStephens]

If Dave would have written a review with a grade of 1 and said...it is too long for me...it is too technical...I hate trees...I hit a deer and bounced in the heavy shule...a squirrel flipped me off and the local girls weren't pretty in my opinion...I would have been fine with that. I just hate when you try to insert 'facts' that are inaccurate.

 

[LStephens]

This is a slippery slope with calling people out in public threads is that you open yourself up to criticism. For example, in LStephens' review of Mesker Park in Evansville, he says "the locals are some of the best...most down to earth people I've ever met. The local scene is very enthusiastic and the people there will literally give you the shirt off their backs."

Are they really the most down to earth? Will they really give me their shirt? If I play there and neither of these statements are true, I guess I'd have to vote not helpful and start a thread on that review too.

Some things are an obvious slight exaggeration. However, the first time I ever went to Evansville...two years ago...I came into town for the weekend and played the course on a Friday...I ripped my shirt on some briars and a guy gave me a tournament shirt. I was going to stay in a hotel and Matt Watson said he would gladly let us camp out on his farm for free...beautiful place...camp site over looking a small lake..he grilled out burgers for us while we watched college football on his back deck.

If you went to Evansville and were treated poorly...I would be highly surprised.

 

[the_lung]

LStephens may be a little defensive about the course he obviously loves and spends so much tender love and care on, but he has every right to be - Idlewild is the best disc golf course on the planet. It's a true golf course where whoever has the biggest arm doesn't win, or even have much of an advantage. Course management is at a premium, and I think this is what is escaping Dave242. Even at Renny, he is used to being able to throw as far as he wants on practically every tee. He simply cannot get past the fact that there are some layup shots and risk / reward at Idlewild that severely punish errant shots and those who cannot throw straight. But the course is all the more better for that design.

 

[Dave242]

Let me put my disclaimer right up front so their is no doubt. I'm a Hole Sponsor at Idlewild and work on the course daily.

As I say at the end of my "personal rating approach/philosophy" on my profile page, I have mad respect for people like you who bust their humps both for the good of the game and so that so many others can enjoy the sport. Idlewild is by far the best manicured public course I have been on. Thank you, thank you for your efforts! If every town had 1-2 folks like you, can you imagine how far ahead our courses would be?

I live in the exact center of Idlewild and Banklick...aka... Lincoln Ridge. Let me start out by saying that I've played both courses about the same number of times...which is about 1 gazillion. I know each hole on each course better than most of you know your wives and/or girlfriends. Thus let me cut to the bone on one point: You criticize Idlewild for not having anywhere to 'get the testosterone flowing' versus Banklick.

I can certainly see where you make the jump in your thinking from my critique of "check your guns at the door" for Idlewild to me thinking Banklick is a testosterone course. ……But that is not what I said nor the reason why I like Banklick more. Most of it has to do with rewarding birdies for me. And, be assured that I am not equating birdies to deuces. I give huge extra credit with courses that have multi-shot holes and good risk-reward.

Oh….and I know Idlewild much better than I know your wife/girlfriend.

NEXT arguement.

Too many trees...I guess you like open courses...I can't argue there..it is a tight course...some of us love it tight...some like to go throw 18 long holes in an open field...to each his own.

I love wooded courses. In fact, all of my top rated courses are all characterized as being challenging and tight wooded courses with good topography.

My critique of Idlewild is that there are too many holes that go against my design preference for what I call "late trouble". By that I mean small gaps/obstacles (trouble) far enough down the fairway so that trouble can not be reasonably navigated….this results in lady luck becoming too much of a factor.

In contrast, I am a big fan of "early trouble" - such as narrow gaps in the first 150-200' of a fairway. This is a much better predictor of skill since it usually punishes errant throws more severely AND more fairly (less luck). Again, IMO the Idlewild design has more "late trouble" than I personally prefer.

NEXT arguement. Island Greens.

Some people don't like the fact you have to think before you throw. I know a lot of people that won't play any OB on any course...they step out of the woods into the fairway to take their next shot. Technically #3 isn't an island hole...it is a peninsula.

You are right about the peninsula thing technically, but for practical purposes they are all island greens for 2 reasons:
1) The steep slope in the back makes impossible or very poor strategy to make use of all the acreage past the pin and up the slope.
2) My understanding is that "Island Hole Rules" are in play for all 4 of these holes (I could be wrong about that, but that is how I approached them). Simplified explanation of this is that if I miss the green even after passing over it (even after landing on it and rolling or skipping off), I must take a penalty stroke and re-throw from across the stream at the point I originally went OB over the stream rather than getting my 1 meter from the OB line on the green.

And, I love the thinking part of the game. Real golf is all about shot planning and weighing risk/reward......and then having to execute to one's plan.

NEXT arguement: 1/4 of the holes are < 200 feet. However... 18 holes divided by 2 holes < 200 feet is 9...which means 1/9th of the holes are < 200 feet.

Like I posted earlier, I am embarrassed by my bad math on this. Believe it or not math was actually my strongest subject in school (engineer), but that was half my life ago. Maybe old age is catching up to me! I will fix this part of my review….it certainly does add to things that make my review seem overly critical when that is not my intent (I talk about my intent in my next post).

Oh..and you say island greens are a 'gimmick' to bump up the Par and SSA and then you mention Renny Gold in the same breath? I don't know if you know this...but Gold Ropes are GIMMICKY to increase Par and Course SSA on an otherwise boring piece of land...sure...Renny Gold is awesome and wonderful to play..but don't call stone walled greens with mulch gimmicky and then say Gold Ropes making tight OB is all natural.

Actually, you are thinking of Winthrop Gold that uses all the ropes. Renny also has artificial OB (not at all like the yellow ropes of Winthrop Gold though) and I am not a fan of some of it (see my review of Renny), but there are no Baskets that are less than 20' from OB (except 5, but that has a 7' fence and I have never seen someone land OB over the fence while in putting range)

I will make another post about what I say surrounding this in another post as it is at the crux of the design philosophy discussion.

But how about pay Idlewild another visit...I'll meet you there....call it by another girls name...show it you have a strong pimp hand...rare back and unleash the fury...show it you are the man..and you'll either emerge from the woods feeling like god...or a broken man.

I would love to play a round with you.....I would prefer you to show me the ropes, the local routes, what was involved in designing and building the course, and other things I can learn. I am wide open to have my opinion changed. If all you want is to have a grudge match and for us to unleash some fury, I would be glad to do that.....but would prefer the former.

Actually, I made another trip out after I originally wrote this. The reason was to do a sanity check on myself I why I seemed alone in not putting Idlewild in my top 5. Unfortunately, the second visit did not really change my perspective.

As opposed to what my reviews appear to be (the ones that someone described as "form-letters"), I actually think long and hard about my rankings. I have been doing this ranking thing for years before this site even started. I have outlined my approach and thought process in my profile (and I pasted it above).

I was shocked and dismayed by how low I ranked Idlewild in my "personal addiction ranking", and chewed on it for days trying to figure out why I felt Idlewild drew me back to itself only on the same level as B-graded courses I had on my list (B's are very good solid courses in my mind….kinda like B students).

That agonizing is where this review comes from. It is not an attempt to tear down, but to give an honest perspective from just 1 reviewer of hundreds that participate well on this site.

 

[scarpfish]

Opinions are what this site is all about....false information and dishonesty should be called out. If anyone can come on here and write drivel without being held accountable..then the website becomes useless and will spiral into oblivion as a site that is discounted as a unreliable source of accurate information.

No. What will make this website useless is people getting all parochial and insisting that their input is the only true gospel, and that anyone who dares tarnish the sacred temple that is their home course is a heretic who needs to be burned at the stake. Then no one will submit anything short of a glowing review (particularly for courses on the far too revered Top 10 list) for fear of the local mob coming to get them in a thread like this one.

He gave his honest assessment of your course, and you gave your honest assessment of his assessment. No dishonesty or false information on either of your parts. His was at least done in the proper time and place.

When I travel I take my laptop and plug it into my phone...and I can log on here and find above average courses that are on my way to my destination. When I need a break after 6+ hours of straight driving...I'll find a course and pull over for a little stretch time...and then continue on my way. If I miss a gem of a course because I read a long post blasting it and saying it was substandard and misled me with what I thought was accurate factual data...that is a loss to me...and I don't like the thought of that.

Why all this carping about "facts"? This is a review site after all, and what is a review but a glorified opinion. All too often reviews say as much if not more about the reviewer than it does about what is being reviewed. To some extent, this is unavoidable because our opinions on most anything are colored by our particular tastes.

Go read the book or product reviews at Amazon, the movie reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, or reviews for restaurants and hotels in your hometown on various travel websites. You will find much the same pattern there as you do here on DGCR. One person's "best of the best" book/movie/power tool/French Bistro/disc golf course can be another's "it was okay", and yet another's "It sucked" and you're left scratching your head if the reviewers had indeed made use of the same product. That hence, is the beauty of a review forum. You can read the various opinions and see if the what-have-you in question is the right what-have-you for you.

If anything, I think some more constructive criticism of our sacred cow courses on here would actually enrich their reputations, even if such costs them a few points in the star rating department.

 

[Dave242]

And, now "let me cut to the bone" on my main point:
What this site probably does (will do) best is to do what www.RottenTomatoes.com does for movies: It is a great place to read reviews/critiques of movies. There are some reviewers I love and will go out of my way to see movies they recommend. Other reviewers that I do not like…..I avoid movies they recommend.

I pull no punches in that I have full disclosure on my skill level, experience level, or preferences that my reviews are based upon.....so hopefully people will know to pursue or to avoid courses I recommend.

What this site is now is a whole bunch of PREviews. That is useful for a lot of purposes, but there are several problems to get useful PREviews compiled in a meaningful way:
1) It is all based on opinion and personal taste/preference anyhow (subjective)
2) Why would anyone really want to add their review as the 40th review when everything they can possibly say has already been said at least 30 times?
3) The rating numbers (except for the very worst and very best courses) will become a meaningless hodge-podge over time since they will become the average of a whole bunch of people with widely varying course preferences and grading approaches.

In the long run, REviews (Critiques) will be better since you will be able to find a reviewer or three that you really like and hone in on what they recommend. In the long run, that will help guide you to the best experiences traveling and exploring even better than the PREviews that dominate this site today. Both are needed and useful however.....they compliment each other.

 

[Dave242]

Go read the book or product reviews at Amazon, the movie reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, or reviews for restaurants and hotels in your hometown on various travel websites.

That is pretty funny that you mention this and posted at the same time I was writting my post.

FYI, I personally take no offense at what LStephens wrote. I appreciate the many points he made, but my reply post was way too long already without replying point-by-point to his overview of the individual holes at Idlewild (and Banklick).

For instance, he was right that I did not consider the up-and-over route for a few of the holes he mentioned. But I made no bones in my review that I did not have the arm to even consider those routes. I hear in other cases what he is saying and considered his options when playing (like trying to throw way around corners and hoping to land anywhere but in the heavy/punishing schule), but did not think for a second that the risk/reward was worth it.

 

[nygfaninva]

Just for giggles, if there's a feature I'd like to see added to the site, it would be something where the reviewers Zip code and the Course's Zip code are plugged into a database, just so we can see how our 4.5 to 5 star courses stack up in the minds of people who aren't locals to those courses. Might put some of the glowing ratings these courses are getting in perspective.

I really didn't see any problem with Dave242's review.

Love that idea and I agree I didn't see anything wrong with the review. Hey everyone has different opinions, deal with it. If someone doesn't like YOUR course oh well, that is their opinion and they are entitled to share it. On another note, if a course is raved about and given 4 1/2 to 5 discs, it's just natural that when I go and play it I will expect it to rock my world.....and if it doesn't, well I'm probably going to give it a lesser review then what everyone else did. No biggie. It's like when you go to see an overhyped summer blockbuster, your expectations are so high, it has to be extra good to meet those expectations. Its natural.

 

[Marty McFly]

Me personally anybody can write a review and we have an option for a thumbs up or down.

We do not have the pleasure of reviewing reviews. If you didn't like it... well then sorry.

 

[Adam Schneider]

I would only rate Dave's review as unhelpful if he levied all those criticisms and then gave it 5 stars... or gave it 3 stars while praising it to the heavens. But if he thinks it's a 3-star course, and he can coherently tell us why, then it's an appropriate review.

 

[Dave242]

If someone wants to humor me, I would like to get back to talking about Idlewild and not just discussing someone's review of someone else's review. (there are more thumbs up than down at this point, BTW )

I stated in my review that Idlewild is listed at 8,220' long and is par 72. By contrast, Renny Gold is 9,407' (14% longer) and is par 70 (3% less…...5% less if you factor out "shots around the green"). SSA is right around 69 for both.

What design techniques boost par while subtracting length?
(Please please please no dead horse beating re "what is par?" here as I think everyone agrees that Par is set correctly for Gold level players on both these courses – at least within 1-2 strokes of disputability).
What design techniques boost SSA while subtracting length?

 

[srm_520]

LOL - man I haven't had a good laugh at a thread like this since 80states went off about a month ago. Perfect thread to start reading before hitting the pillow for the night. Thanks!

: Finishes popcorn : : Pushes in chair : : Heads to bed. :

 

[A.Mutt]

ahhhh critiques. I went through art school and for those that haven't experienced it, you really learn the meaning of swallowing your pride during critiques. Nothing like having 30 peers pick apart and sometimes rip apart something you've really poured yourself into and love. How can you not want to take that personally? To them its not you, its something you made, but to them its something they are experiencing. A lot more can be learned from a dissenting opinion than a bunch of nods.