difficulty affect your rating?

[jace]

O.K. - So timg...... are you there...... is it feasible to add a notation as to the "level" the course was designed for, and how do we accurately attain that information? It could be kind of cool to have a colored disc by the course name indicating this as a quick reference. I know Olorin's system works well for this and is what i have adopted in helping to review courses i play, but i doubt everyone is seriously going to go to this extent. It takes me about an hour and a half input data and then write a review for most courses. Course length is predominantly what sets a course to a certain level as best i can tell. Obviously there are numerous other factors too, but maybe there is a default for certain course lengths unless a trusted reviewer has completed enough data collection on a course to justify changing it? Maybe if the hole length information is added on a course, the default difficulty is automatically generated as a certain color disc.

just an idea.....

 

[Dave242]

I know Olorin's system works well for this and is what i have adopted in helping to review courses i play, but i doubt everyone is seriously going to go to this extent. It takes me about an hour and a half input data and then write a review for most courses.

I make a conscious effort to evaluate just the course, not how I played it, when it comes time to review. But its pretty hard to completely separate your own abilities from rating a course.

Olorin met me at a course I designed a few years back. I had met him online and conversed a lot, but this was the first time in person. I tell you what.....it was painful to play with him since he spent so much time looking and measuring and taking notes. Lucky he forewarned me!

Like both you guys say and like I saw with Olorin in action, it is indeed very hard to size a course up for how good/appropriate it is for various skill levels.

What is even harder to understand/recognize is when a hole is long enough to be a hard Par-3 for say a Blue level player, but a perfect Par-4 for a Red level player. There are plenty of scenarios like this to consider if you are doing it right.....and I do not have the patience or time to do this level of analysis. (This is one reason why I find it helpful/useful to rate courses as I do - I disclose my skill and distance and other preferences and then rate how much I like it. I think my ratings are good/valid.....my reviews on the other hand )

 

[Olorin]

Olorin met me at a course I designed a few years back. I had met him online and conversed a lot, but this was the first time in person. I tell you what.....it was painful to play with him since he spent so much time looking and measuring and taking notes. Lucky he forewarned me!

I'm just glad that Gary was with us to give you some company. Maybe I should have given you even more of warning, like this, though.

Like both you guys say and like I saw with Olorin in action, it is indeed very hard to size a course up for how good/appropriate it is for various skill levels.

Jace,

Upon reflection I'd have to admit that Dave is right. I'm jut not sure how well most people can accurately estimate the course level. I suppose if a person has enough experience that they can make a reasonable guess, but then it's still just a subjective guess.

Even after closely analyzing over 220 course layouts I can't even always play a course and confidently decide it's level, there on the spot, because there are too many variables such as elevation changes, OB, foliage density... I can only do it after plugging numbers into a spreadsheet. Even then the tweeners are problematic. It can be hard to differentiate tough White from Easy Blue/ tough Blue from easy Gold, etc... I guess the PDGA Course level guidelines might help, though.

With the spreadsheet I gave you you can also do pretty well at estimating the course level, and I'm glad to give that to others who want it. I've noticed that there are a few smaller points that I still need to explain better, though.

 

[laxrulz777]

Two other things to consider

Some courses are just intended to be par 3 courses. This doesn't mean they're "easier" then a par 72 course (although you would expect to have less throws total obviously). I've played plenty of brutal par 3 courses (Cedar Hills in Raleigh) and some fairly easy par 72 courses (Tom Brown in Tallahassee).

Additionally, I played a course this weekend that was very easy and short (Lander University in Greenwood, SC) but it made excellent use of the terrain given the constraints (the course LITERALLY runs through campus). So there was a good variety of shots and use of the natural surroundings, it just didn't translate into difficulty (although someone who can ONLY drive straight RHBH shots might feel differently). Given that it's clearly a beginner's course, I didn't hold any of this against it when rating it.

Someone above said it well, if the course is "difficult" because the trees are so dense that Ken Climo and I are going to throw the same pancake shot and make the same prayer to the disc golf gods, then I'll ding the course. If they're just very, very difficult holes then I'm not going to hold that against the course but I will mention it in a review.

 

[BrotherDave]

Nice first post, welcome to the site. You really do have to consider the skill level the course is designed for. I was quite outclassed by Renny but I just couldn't knock it even though I had an awful round. It is an upper tier course, indubitably.

 

[mashnut]

Even though I know my skill level is far below a top caliber championship course, I still find the challenge a lot of fun. I'll actually enjoy a course more if it really beats me up and leaves me mentally and physically tired after a round or two.

 

[cydisc]

I don't mind difficulty as long as it's also fair.

A course with nothing but 500' holes with 8' wide fairways, while very difficult, is also unfair (and un-fun).