Do Private Courses Get Rated Higher?

[New013]

I did not picture hole 13 (the cool downhill throw to a basket up in a beautiful dead log) as that would be a signature hole on most courses. I am not a huge fan of the design of that hole - especially the guardian trees around the basket randomly punishing those with the guts to go for it off the tee and executing perfectly.....but that's another topic.

I love that hole as well but those damn trees on the right of the basket are ridiculous. I put my PD about 20' right of the basket on a beautiful flex shot and still had all those trees with their tiny limbs in the way... when you get that close to a 500'+ hole with your drive it is a letdown to still have to hyzer your putt around trees to an elevated basket.

I hit a small limb and then the front of the basket, not getting that two will haunt me.

 

[Lewis]

I hit a small limb and then the front of the basket, not getting that two will haunt me.

It's a gorgeous hole for sure, but those little trees inside the circle really are frustrating, as if putting at an elevated basket isn't challenge enough. :doh:

 

[prerube]

that's some funny funny stuff! Especially coming from a guy with an avatar that looks like Shrek.....makes me think of the pitchfork scene in that movie! Tell them locals to be careful since behind the dogface I am Shrek and will do to them what he did to the villagers. Plus Kelly is fine with my perspective per a long email conversation I had with him.

Yeah - I do not use the Con section in any of my reviews. Instead, my reviews focus on the positives and try to quantify how much of a positive a given course rates in the 5 areas I find important to me in making it a highly addictive course for me to want to play over and over and over. If you want Cons, simply subtract my grade from a A+/100.......or read where I explain/justify the grade/rating:

1) Holes with good risk/reward. Fair, but harsh punishment for bad decisions or execution. == B
2) Holes that have rewarding birdie opportunities for me. I'm a Blue level player (950ish skill) who throws 300' accurately, 360' max. == B
3) More wooded than open - lots of variety of shots required caused by hole shape and topography. == B+
4) Natural beauty (Appalachian beauty preferred) and seclusion. == B+
5) Bonus points for multi-throw holes with defined landing zones, good risk/reward and multiple options to play them. == 4 bonus points

I am not going to do extra math just to understand your review.
you have given 10 perfect 5 disc ratings, do you really think those 10 courses are two full notches above flyboy?

 

[Dave242]

I am not going to do the extra math just to make you understand that I did not rate it a full 2 notches below my 5.0 rated courses. I have made my rationale perfectly clear.....and 2/3's of the people who thumbed me must have felt like you and your 2 pitchfork buddies.

 

[prerube]

A 4 is 2 notches below a 5. There is 5, 4.5, and the 4 you gave it.
you rated it less than 97% of the other raters with no clear justification, just letter grades and talk about how you do reviews.

You gave 22 courses a better rating than flyboy, you are nuts if flyboy is not in your top 20.

 

[New013]

well you do play across the road twice....

:|

 

[prerube]

Renny had way more safety issues and he rated it higher.

 

[Dave242]

I love that hole as well but those damn trees on the right of the basket are ridiculous. I put my PD about 20' right of the basket on a beautiful flex shot and still had all those trees with their tiny limbs in the way... when you get that close to a 500'+ hole with your drive it is a letdown to still have to hyzer your putt around trees to an elevated basket.

I do not want to nitpick one hole, but I had a long discussion with Kelly on how from a scoring exhilaration experience, Flyboy let me down. Half the holes were perfect for me, and half were either too long or too short.....so half the time the course did not offer me reward for great execution. And, it is not just about me - it is about the holes that suit other people well that will find my favorite holes boring from a scoring perspective. He understood completely what I was saying and told me that his design intentionally had a little bit for everyone.....so he is a very successful designer in my book.

Lots of people do not care about this stuff.....and I understand that and am perfectly fine with it. And on topic for this thread, I fully expect private courses to be designed for the fun-loving more so than the technically-minded. So, the fun-loving DGCR crowd rates many private courses higher than I do.

This hole is a case in point in a design that I cannot figure out what level it is for. If it is for a level of player that you want to tempt to go for a deuce, those guardian trees are bad. If you want it to be for a level that is not good enough to execute that shot, then move the tee back a little and to the side so that it is a real 2 shot hole with some cool shot shaping required. Then you tempt people to go as far down the fairway as possible so they have an easier time navigating those guardian trees on their 2nd throw. Then you have some real risk/reward decision making going on combined with interesting throws required.

 

[mjoyce]

Wow, this thread really went from the question the OP asked into a why did Dave242 rate Flyboy a 4 instead of a 5 thread.

 

[Dave242]

A 4 is 2 notches below a 5. There is 5, 4.5, and the 4 you gave it.
you rated it less than 97% of the other raters with no clear justification, just letter grades and talk about how you do reviews.

You gave 22 courses a better rating than flyboy, you are nuts if flyboy is not in your top 20.

All right, I'll go bad on my word and do the math for you. I gave Flyboy a 90 and some of my 5.0's are 96's. That equates to 1.5 notches....which rounds up to 2 notches on the DGCR non-granular scale.

You obviously have not read my review if you say all I have is letter grades and how I do reviews. If you want to talk about substantively about courses, I am fine with that. But if all you want to do is gripe and snipe I am over and out. 10-4 good buddy?

 

[Dave242]

Wow, this thread really went from the question the OP asked into a why did Dave242 rate Flyboy a 4 instead of a 5 thread.

I think it is a "case study" on course design priorities of private courses that end up making a difference in getting them rated higher than public courses. Not sure about prerube, but I am trying to keep it on topic.

I am just as prepared to do a case study on Flip City and Brackett's Bluff (both are also 4.0 courses to me).....both of which have a similar sort of design philosophy (I have talked to Dave but not to Bill so I am speculating on the design philosophy at Flip).

What do you think about course design for fun versus course design for scoring purposes?

 

[mjoyce]

The only private course I've played is Flip and the only other course in the top 10 I've played is Deer Lakes. I've only played Deer Lakes once and it was last summer in some pretty hot humid weather (upper 90s) and Deer Lakes ate me alive.

I've improved some since last summer. Particularly off the tee I'm much better and more consistent (my putting stinks out loud). I've not yet played Deer Lakes this summer. But I did play Flip. I had a great time. I played the course 3 or 4 times. Only played one singles round though the rest were dubs. I did not score well in my singles round (95) but I'm still not a very good golfer. I had a ton of fun playing dubs at Flip though and felt like I played really well.

But I thought Flip City was a FUN course. I can't really comment on design for scoring purposes because I really just don't often score that well. My general approach to the game is to be accurate with my drive so that I can have a close (10' or closer) putt at the basket for a 3, or a 2 on a shorter hole. But a mistake from the tee or on the up shot is most likely to result in a bogey.(I have about 275-300' consistent accurate distance off the tee max of 350' with any resemblance of accuracy)

Having said all of that I'll say that Flip City rewards that type of drive off the tee. If you can put one out there ~300 with a teebird it gives you the room to do it on all but a few holes (as you stated in your review) because a lot of the shots give you a nice lane to work with from the tee. (14,15 come to mind as holes that have a "tunnel" off the tee but the fairway opens up to give you room to work a second shot) Another positive to Flip that I would attribute to it's being a private course was the mowed paths in the rough between fairways, it made it so much better trying to find a lost disc than in some of the shule I typically play in.

I would venture to guess that a lot of private courses are designed to be fun in order to attract out of town players as well as players of all skill levels. Where as courses like Deer Lakes are more designed to reward more advanced players and punish rec/novice level players.

I don't recall exactly how much fun I had the first time I played Deer Lakes. I feel like I had a lot more fun playing Flip the first time although I didn't score well on either one the first time I played them.

At the end of the day I just like to get out there and play and I enjoy the differences in course type from location to location. I think that's the best part of our sport. It makes me want to travel and play courses in different areas more often.

 

[DavidSauls]

I would venture to guess that a lot of private courses are designed to be fun in order to attract out of town players as well as players of all skill levels.

I'd guess that the course owner's skill level and what he finds most fun affects the design, too.

 

[mjoyce]

I'd guess that the course owner's skill level and what he finds most fun affects the design, too.

I would agree with that.

Would you agree that a what a public course's designer finds fun would also have an effect on design? (along with the land available of course)

 

[prerube]

I have read the review, that was why i could say that I do not feel it explains what the cons were that dropped it from a 5 to a 4. A 90 should be a 4.5 not a 4.
5 = 96-100
4.5= 90-95
4= 85-89

You seem to want a course designed just for you with every hole being in your ideal range of distance. A good course needs some long holes and some short holes. Courses cater to all skill levels.

 

[Dave242]

You seem to want a course designed just for you with every hole being in your ideal range of distance.

No kidding.....it is my review reflecting my preferences (reviews are totally meaningless if not done this way as almost every single course out there is great for someone, so reviews where the reviewers try to take everyone's perspective into account are ultimately disingenuous and presumptuous if you think about it.

I love competing with myself and want the course to reward my good shots and punish my errant shots. That way I am pumped when I score well and want to get that mountain top experience again. And, I am disappointed/angry when I don't....and full of motivation to take revenge on the course.

By any definition that makes sense, a "Good" course is a course you want to play and a "Great" course is one you really really want to play over and over and over. If Bad/Good/Great is about anything about other than wanting to play it.....I just don't get it since the answer to "What is it Good for" has got to be "playing".

My review did a very good job of explaining why Flyboy is a Good course and why it falls short of being a Great course for me.

A good course needs some long holes and some short holes. Courses cater to all skill levels.

That is a design philosophy that is good for a recreational mentality. For those of us who consider disc golf a sport (and the vast majority of DGCR forum users claim they think it is a sport), a course needs to separate the best from the rest. And, the best way a course can do that is to be designed for a particular skill level.

 

[prerube]

No kidding.....it is my review reflecting my preferences (reviews are totally meaningless if not done this way as almost every single course out there is great for someone, so reviews where the reviewers try to take everyone's perspective into account are ultimately disingenuous and presumptuous if you think about it.

I love competing with myself and want the course to reward my good shots and punish my errant shots. That way I am pumped when I score well and want to get that mountain top experience again. And, I disappointed/angry when I don't and full of motivation to take revenge on the course.

By any definition that makes sense, a "Good" course is a course you want to play and a "Great" course is one you really really want to play over and over and over. If Bad/Good/Great is about anything about other than wanting to play it.....I just don't get it since the answer to "What is it Good for" has got to be "playing".

My review did a very good job of explaining why Flyboy is a Good course and why it falls short of being a Great course for me.



That is a design philosophy that is good for a recreational mentality. For those of us who consider disc golf a sport (and the vast majority of DGCR forum users claim they think it is a sport), a course needs to separate the best from the rest. And, the best way a course can do that is to be designed for a particular skill level.

That is hypocritical.
You said that some holes were too long at flyboy and it hurt the rating. So if a course tries to seperate the best from the rest, then you say the course is not good?
You can not say that you have played 20 courses better than flyboy. Flyboy must have kicked your a$$ for a full point deduction. Personally I think reviewers should not let a bad round affect their rating.

 

[New013]

I think Dave is saying that a course should pick a skill level and stick with it, I'm guessing a pro type layout, for it to be his ideal type course. Flyboy gives you a bit of everything and doesn't really stick to one skill level.

I agree that if we were judging courses from a strictly technical perspective Flyboy nor Bracketts would be 5 disc courses.

 

[DavidSauls]

I would agree with that.

Would you agree that a what a public course's designer finds fun would also have an effect on design? (along with the land available of course)

Yes, but not to the same degree.

If I were a public course designer I might be able to design a Gold Course. I might be able to design a course for beginners. I might be able to design a course for an elementary school.

But if I'm designing a private course on my own property, expect a bias towards my skill level---or, more accurately, my skill level and above---and the type of holes I find most fun. Because I'll end up playing it a lot, and want to enjoy doing so. Hopefully others will find it enjoyable as well.

 

[Dave242]

You got it New. The only modification I would make to your post is "mostly technical perspective" rather than "strictly".

Prerube - Flyboy did not beat me up. I will admit and have admitted as such in my review that several holes are too much for me from a scoring perspective:
about 1/4 are too short to get excited about (4, 10, 12, 13, 16, 22) and about another 1/3 are too long to be anything but a routine par (1, 13, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27) …..or a bummer of a bogey if I manage to screw up the conservative play that would yield that routine par

I throw 300' accurately and 360' max, so a hole that is say 380-480' and open-ish is boring as I can just throw 2 conservative shots and almost always get my 3. Any deuce I get is a fluke and so any scoring separation is due to my screw-ups. All punishment and no reward....boring and not fun. And, you extend that math out to multi-throw holes that are just a little too long.