Great post t i m! All of it is spot on in my book. I would rate that way if this site was set up to rate that way.
The problem is, there is no way here to separate out the intended skill level of courses, so doing things this way makes it look like you are equating Renny Gold to an excellently designed pitch and putt course that does a great job of drawing beginners in. (My ratings list does something similar and I have the same problem: I have 2 lists - one for 18 and more hole courses and one for less than 18.)
Another problem is that doing things this way takes a lot of experience - both in playing a lot of courses and watching a lot of people play. This sort of experience is few and far between on this site, IMO.
And yet another problem: It seems like a good portion of courses are designed to have a little bit for every skill level - a smorgasbord approach. How do you rate (categorize, more accurately) those?
Dave,
I feel like I have enough experience to accurately categorize a course -- maybe that's personal arrogance, but I think after playing 150+ courses across the country for the past 11 years, and being a highly critical-thinker, that I've got the experience to stand behind a course-level based approach. And I freely admit that most players don't have the breadth of experience to rate the same way.
However, I think that most people -- well before they learn how to rate well -- do get a rough idea of their skill level (red/white/blue/gold), or at least get an idea of whether or not they like playing challenging courses. So I think far more people can benefit from level-based reviews than can write them, if that makes sense.
And in some ways, I do think there is a cap to how good a less-challenging course can be. I don't expect to ever play a five-star, SSA-46 course. I just don't think it exists. I'm not saying it CAN'T exist -- just that I don't think it exists now, and I don't think it is ever likely to exist.
I can picture a hypothetical SSA-46 course that is comprised of stunning shots on a Hawaiian landscape or somewhere similar, with unbelievable, exhilarating elevation shots through rainforests and off seaside cliffs, fresh fruit falling on the course, casual-lie crystal clear lagoon water, pristine sand tees and the chance to play 18 holes barefoot in paradise. I could give a course like that five stars even if I shot mid-40s and never picked up anything except a putter. You see what I mean? That would be a course geared towards beginners in terms of skill that yet created a sense of fun that made it exhilarating and refreshing for every level of player.
For me, for a beginner-level course to score a 4.0 or better, it had better offer something for more experienced players -- either in terms of exciting, memorable shots, or great risk/reward, or unbelievable views, etc...
Kereiakes Park in Bowling Green, KY, is a course that is fun no matter what the skill level, in part because it has so many cool shots, beautiful trees and is so well taken care of. They have the details right. It deserves it's 4.14-rating, even though it isn't a super-hard course (I think SSA is ~49).
Another couple of stand-out courses are
Unami Creek in Quakertown, PA, and
Signal View in Maurertown, VA. Both are exceptional 9-hole courses. Great shot variety, good elevation, soothing scenery. Good tees and course flow... Unami is one of the most fun courses I've ever played, and it's brief 9-holes are beautifully designed and are fun for new and old players. The highest praise I can give it is that my girlfriend and I both had a blast playing there... despite the fact that I throw 970+ golf, and I'm betting if she were to shoot a rated-round, it would be closer to a 700... we're about as radically different as you can get on skill level, and still both had an awesome time playing that course. Well worth checking out if you ever get the chance... and it's near Nockamixon, which is it's own discussion.
As for your question about courses with a Smorgasboard approach to design -- a mix of different shots trying to appeal to all levels of players -- I'd say that most of those smorgasboard courses are probably optimized for white-level (~900-rated) players, and are trying to offer a few fun shots for everyone. They can be entertaining, and serve their purpose, and are fun for groups of mixed skill to play together. I'd probably give most of those somewhere around an average rating, depending on the details of the course -- maintenance, shot variety, aesthetics, fun-factor, amenities, etc...
I think that as this site sorts itself out, many of the most elite courses are going to be those that offer legitimate, intentionally-designed options for every skill level. The best example I can think of is Iron Hill in Neward, DE. Give it another year, and it will be the textbook example of how to design a world-class course.
They are building three sets of tees: gold, blue and I'm not sure if the third set is white or red... and there are going to be two permanent pins per hole. The goal is to make it so that the course plays Par 72 to the long baskets for anyone who plays their skill level teeboxes... What I mean is that a 900-rated player who plays the white boxes should shoot a 72; a 950-rated player who plays the blue boxes should shoot a 72; a 1000-rated player who plays the gold boxes should shoot a 72. The same approach is being taken for the shorter pins... but I'm not sure what the shorter par is going to be. I'm guessing somewhere around 63.
This will give everyone the option of playing a layout appropriate to their skill level. Newer players can play the short tees to short pins, which will probably be close to 30 strokes easier for them than the gold tees to long baskets.
And the great thing about the design is that it's being done in such a way so that the walking isn't ridiculous... for instance, if you're playing the short baskets, there will be walking trails taking you across to the shorter tees after you hole out. If you're playing the longest layout, it flows naturally as well. An immense amount of time and planning has been done to ensure that each of the six eventual course options will flow well and keep people moving through the course.
The shot variety and challenge are also being optimized for the intended player level. The gold boxes are forcing tighter lines and some mega-power shots that less-experienced players simply won't have in their arsenal. The long pin placements have much faster greens, tighter gaps and higher risk/reward layups than the short pins... in short, the design is simply awesome. Give it a year, then check it out... it's come a long way, and it's going to be even better before they are done.
I think more and more courses being designed now are being put in by people who are looking for ways to go beyond the norm and design epic courses. We need all levels of courses. Heck, I hope to see new courses put in that are intended and optimized for the best possible SuperClass experience -- and that don't allow other discs. I think SuperClass is more accessible and family friendly than disc golf. One or two discs (or lids) and a lot more glide-to-power rato than "real discs." Far less equipment, less danger, and equal fun.
But I also hope that more Iron Hill type courses are designed to push the boundaries of the sport. It's a different physical game and a different mental game to play a par-70+ course. You can take a bunch of fives and sixes and still cash in pro. Contrast that to a non-sanctioned event last weekend at
Calvert Park in College Park, MD, where they played three rounds -- one each from the "red, white, and blue" tees... only a handful of people showed up, but the winning scores were 133 strokes total for 54 holes... -- an average of almost 10-strokes under par per round (less than 2.5 strokes/hole)... that's just silly, and is a different sport than a course where people are shooting 70+ strokes per 18 holes (~4 strokes/hole)... the skillsets are different, the mental game is different, the physical game is different.
And the ratings should be different. The problem -- as you've identified -- is that there are no clear distinctions between courses geared towards different skill levels. But despite the blurred lines, those of us with experience can offer our best perspectives, and hope that that is good enough to help out some of our fellow players.
