Well then I guess I shouldn't have done 96 out of my 98 reviews. I didn't start using the scorebook until last week but I don't think it makes my or anyone else's reviews less valid.
-
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)
Dave242's Review of Idlewild
- Thread starter LStephens
- Start date
Well then I guess I shouldn't have done 96 out of my 98 reviews. I didn't start using the scorebook until last week but I don't think it makes my or anyone else's reviews less valid.
I never write my scores...what does that matter?
I agree. Me and Dave seem to have similar taste, wooded with elevation. I am starting to think that I would prob like Lincoln ridge more than idlewild also.
Me Three, I like elevation woods and OPTIONS!
have you played Nockamixon since it's extension of 14 to 18? and is it an epic course or just a solid 4?
I am very biased since I helped build and still maintain Nocky.....But it's a damn epic course...trust me on that! I feel good when I shoot in the 80s there Pros shoot in the 70s.....par is 68 and thats a tough 68! I really don't think there is a course that combines challenge and uniqueness anywhere else! I have played over 90 including a handful of top ten at the time courses and Nocky is certainly deserving of top rating.....what holds it back is occasional maintenance issues and no concrete tees. Your not gonna find better fairways or unique holes anywhere like Nocky!
cool. some courses for 1 reason or the another have tees in spots that you can't pour concrete. some because of erosion issues but if it is a well designed hole I say leave it be. It's ashamed that to be a 5 you must have perfect tee pads. Shot design and terrain should mean more in my opinion. and after playing heavily wooded courses a majority of my rounds I don't count poison ivy as a con unless it is in the tee pad area really bad. Hope to one day play Nocky and any other Heavily wooded courses close to it.
Dave 242 is notorious for bad reviews, check out his Lake's Edge at Lake Reidsville, 1.5 where the course gets 3-5 from everyone else. Refuses to change it as he says he played it when it first opened. But he didnt review it till over a year after he played it. Not a trusted reviewer in my opinion.
Score has nothing to do with the course, i will NEVER put my score in a review.
The quote that shook up Idlewild's review:
After that was posted the score was changed to a 5 and Dave242 was attacked from both sides People yelling for the original 3 and those who thought he changed it with out justification. (it's an interesting thread, and I think it spins off into another thread)
After that was posted the score was changed to a 5 and Dave242 was attacked from both sides People yelling for the original 3 and those who thought he changed it with out justification. (it's an interesting thread, and I think it spins off into another thread)
Why the sour grapes?
I just dont think he can be trusted as a reviewer, judging on past reviews. Sour grapes, because I the rest of the disc golf community in my area have put blood and sweat into making Lake Reidsville a championship caliber course and he refuses to recoginize it but posting a long time after he played it and ample work has been done.
Sounds like a personal beef you have with him. Maybe addressing him personally instead of on a forum will help you get an answer. Not doubting you and the other locals haven't put a lot of effort into the course, but don't you think most courses have locals spending hours on upkeep?
Last edited:
Whether or not you like Dave's reviewing style, if you take the time to read the reviews he's added more details to, and his thoughts in the forums about course design, it's pretty obvious he's got a lot of experience and knowledge about disc golf courses, and that he very seriously considers a lot of different things when reviewing/rating a course. I live relatively close to him, so he has reviewed pretty much all the area courses, and I've found that I agree with his ratings more often than not.
One thing I forgot to add. Tyson, I do agree with you about the idea of the review taking place 2 years after playing the course. With all the variables and changes to a course, there should be a limit on how far back a review can take place. If a review includes outdated, and therefore incorrect, info about the course, it can disregard all the effort you put into improving the course.
trashmonster1985
Birdie Member
I told Dave242 I am against anyone reviewing a course 1 year after playing
(how do you keep 200 courses straight, I forget interesting facts about courses in weeks.
(how do you keep 200 courses straight, I forget interesting facts about courses in weeks.
I love this site; and believe it was way past due. But, there have been people who loved to travel and play disc for 20+ years now. A small group has been at it for nearly 30 years. Do you not think we kept notes on these courses as we played them? Dave has stated that he did just this, over the years. I didn't keep the kind of short novel novels that many reviewers write today; I doubt if Dave did either. But, we did want to make note for both ourselves and others, who felt about playing and traveling as we did. My system; (and Dave's probably) varied a little from the 1-5 system DGCR uses. At the same time; it was probably very similar. I would give courses very good, good, average, bad, and for the very rare course, very, very, good. VG=3.5 to 4 in DGCR terms, good = 3, etc. Anything with a very good was definitely a "return to" destination. 3's, or "good" courses were a probable return, etc. I would also often make brief notes about tees and baskets and obvious care, or lack there of, from the local clubs. So, I (we) were taking notes years ago, for our own reviewing purposes. They were not as detailed as they are kept today, that is often true. However, I can tell you that from a rating standpoint, the numbers/ratings have remained largely the same. The main difference being, that a 5,500 foot course was fairly long, years ago, while now you get to 6 or even 7,000 feet for the "very good" courses.
With all that said, I personally, rarely review a course unless I've recently played it. The biggest reasons for this being, that to get positive review opinions requires a certain minutiae of detail these days. And, upgrades are needed on courses that used to be very good, to maintain that status, with the newer standards for quality courses. For many of the courses that were top notch, you could tell they were going to remain that way because of the obvious love of the local club. This is partially why; if you were paying attention, you could tell years ago which courses were going to remain top of the line, and, which seemed destined for disrepair.
I am not a top fan of Dave's style, and I'm glad he has been adding more and more little comments about the courses he reviews. I can say, that while we sometimes differ a little on our assessments, the general number he gives a course is a very well rounded and solid representation of the course in question.
With all that said, I personally, rarely review a course unless I've recently played it. The biggest reasons for this being, that to get positive review opinions requires a certain minutiae of detail these days. And, upgrades are needed on courses that used to be very good, to maintain that status, with the newer standards for quality courses. For many of the courses that were top notch, you could tell they were going to remain that way because of the obvious love of the local club. This is partially why; if you were paying attention, you could tell years ago which courses were going to remain top of the line, and, which seemed destined for disrepair.
I am not a top fan of Dave's style, and I'm glad he has been adding more and more little comments about the courses he reviews. I can say, that while we sometimes differ a little on our assessments, the general number he gives a course is a very well rounded and solid representation of the course in question.
