Do Private Courses Get Rated Higher?

[prerube]

Well I may be harsh in this thread, I do have respect for you. Some of your reviews have been helpful for me, you added the phrase "applachian beauty" to my vocab. I just have a few issues with the some of the reviews, but your rating is your opinion. I am just voicing that I disagree with the flyboy review. I would like to see clearly listed cons, but that is my preference.

I never threatened your life, I just wanted to give you the visual of an angry mob of flyboy homeboys upset with your review.

 

[tallpaul]

There were no angry mobs at Flyboy meet up....despite free beer for those wanting it.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Time for a witch hunt...

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

 

[bholy08]

We have to distinguish between whether private courses tend to be rated higher simply because they're private, or whether private courses tend to be better and thus rated higher. Probably some of both, but I believe the latter is the major factor.[/QUOTE]


Really the key question of the entire issue, although I do enjoy Dave and Prerube's sparring

 

[prerube]

Dave and I butt heads often. He is a very valuable member to this site and I probably crossed a line bringing up his thumbs down, but there are some issues we disagree about regaurding reviews.

I think most people were in agreement that the answer is yes, private courses get higher ratings on average, unless the public course can provide something the owner of the private course can't provide by being a tour guide.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

The private courses I've played are better than most of the public courses. That's my opinion, and I've given reasons to support it.

That being said, there isn't necessarily anything preventing public courses from being better than private courses. Public courses typically have more resources available, and could be better than private courses, if the governing agencies responsible for them genuinely wanted to make top notch courses. It's just a matter of how far they are/aren't willing to do, and what compromises they think they need to make.

 

[Dave242]

I agree with your second paragraph with this qualifier: In cases where the park department has majority input into the planning and installation of courses, I believe that usually those are not very good courses. If a good designer and/or good club is given latitude, the course is usually pretty good to excellent (provided the land they are using is good).

I can think of a lot of holes on private courses that I think are very unique and creative that would never fly on a public course - safety being the usual reason. I imagine those give a bump to DGCR ratings since they are usually really fun. On most of those holes however, the actual effect on how the hole plays from a challenge/scoring perspective is often a non-factor (so they don't really make the course "play" better).

 

[Dave242]

The private courses I've played are better than most of the public courses. That's my opinion, and I've given reasons to support it.

I 100% agree with this as written. But, as has been pointed out upthread, it either takes a very rich person or a fool to build their own private course on mediocre land.

So, for an apples to apples comparison you really need to compare private courses with public courses that are built on similarly great pieces of property. When that is the comparison, I am not as convinced private courses are that far ahead (or ahead at all for that matter). I am talking here about the course itself - not the crowds, the litter, the decorations, the owner and all his friendliness and hard work.....

 

[prerube]

I think people Do take into account the crowds and litter, that is why private has the advantage.

I think some of the private courses would loose a full point in their rating if they were public.

Hawk Hollow for example: No tee signs or navigational aides, mixed tee pads, no bathrooms, no benches, tons of cow poop, ect.

 

[Dave242]

Wow - a full point?! I have not played Hawk Hollow, but from what I see online and have heard from friends it certainly seems like more than a 3.64.

You point out a major double standard in this case - tee pads, navigation, bathrooms, benches all get a pass for private courses (and major dingage on public).

And then many good public courses get dinged precisely for being good......lots of crowds coming to play them (and the powers that be not keeping up with their litter and other wear and tear).

Seems very inconsistent to me! Major apples-to-oranges issue! I am starting to really like my rubric of basing the majority of my review on the "airway" design of the course.

 

[gdub58]

When that is the comparison, I am not as convinced private courses are that far ahead (or ahead at all for that matter). I am talking here about the course itself - not the crowds, the litter, the decorations, the owner and all his friendliness and hard work.....

But isn't that the point of the original question? Do you agree that the lack of crowds, the recognition of the owner's hard work, the experience, etc. is exactly why people tend to rate private courses higher?

Hypothetically, if you had two courses that were identical in every way, but one of them had someone greeting you at the first tee, showing you around the course, and fixing you lunch afterwards, wouldn't you expect that the one with the personal touches would be rated higher by most people?

IMO, one of the main points behind the never ending disagreements about course ratings (either overall or individual reviews) is how much people consider the experience rather than just the design of the course itself.

While it would be reasonable to argue that in rating similar experiences (like ball golf courses) amenities should be considered in the evaluation, I don't necessarily believe that it should be the case for disc golf courses because I would argue that the baseline expectation is different. At a ball golf course I expect a well-stocked pro shop, a nice practice area, and regular water coolers because I'm paying for the round - the more I pay the more I expect.

For a pay-to-play disc golf experience I might expect a bit more, but the baseline isn't that much higher because a normal PTP fee of $5 isn't enough to significantly raise my expectations. As such, I try to base my ratings solely on the course itself, which is 90% the design/difficulty and perhaps 10% on course features like benches, trash cans, and the like.

That said, I don't have an issue with people who swoon over the personal touches at places like Flip or Flyboy unless their rating appears to be heavily influenced by things like how crowded the course is or how nice the owner was to them...

 

[DavidSauls]

My preferred hypothetical on this subject is to imagine a particular quality private course going public---bought by the local parks dept. and opened to the public, free to play. Would that change your rating?

That's the closest to apples-to-apples I can come up with.

 

[gdub58]

My preferred hypothetical on this subject is to imagine a particular quality private course going public---bought by the local parks dept. and opened to the public, free to play. Would that change your rating?

That's the closest to apples-to-apples I can come up with.

Nope - the design of the course hasn't changed so my rating wouldn't change. The fact that it is now free to play wouldn't make a difference either.

 

[Dave242]

But isn't that the point of the original question? Do you agree that the lack of crowds, the recognition of the owner's hard work, the experience, etc. is exactly why people tend to rate private courses higher?

The OP said this:

If you have 2 courses, one private and one public, of almost identical quality, ammenities and reviewed by the same players, do you think the private course would be rated higher?

Seems to me that private courses have a personal touch/connection with local players and reviewers have more difficulty rating objectivly. What are your thoughts?

This thread in my mind is about objectively rating courses. That is different from the experience that happens in between leaving for the course and departing.

If you really want a true apples-to-apples comparison, for objectivity (to minimize subjectivity since rating/reviewing is subjective to begin with), all of these factors should be removed for consideration in how someone assigns a numerical rating to a course:
Location of course, neighborhood course is in, people on course and interactions with them, parking, bathrooms, weather.

Additionally, I do not think these should be included since they may be different the very next day:
Mowing, litter, puddles, missing baskets, navigation signs, benches

I can see how these could affect rating, but other than extreme cases (and I have seen a few examples of each in the courses I have played) they do not affect things enough to make a difference (more than 0.5 discs):
Tee pads, basket condition, basket type, signage (especially if there is online info or a kiosk map), conflict with other park activities

 

[Dave242]

My preferred hypothetical on this subject is to imagine a particular quality private course going public---bought by the local parks dept. and opened to the public, free to play. Would that change your rating?

That's the closest to apples-to-apples I can come up with.

Interesting way of looking at things for sure. It does answer one issue as it would eliminate the double standards that prerube pointed out with Hawk Hollow (and I expounded on).

It is a little hard for me to wrap my head around this when I think of specific private courses. This is due to changes the park department would make - mainly parking and modifications for safety reasons. And things like design done for low usage that would need to change to accommodate crowds - fairway conflict mainly (too close to each other and/or crossing, baskets too close to tees, etc).

Like I said.....I believe that removing everything except the course itself from the review criteria is the best way to get consistent measure of a subjective topic.

 

[DavidSauls]

Interesting way of looking at things for sure. It does answer one issue as it would eliminate the double standards that prerube pointed out with Hawk Hollow (and I expounded on).

It is a little hard for me to wrap my head around this when I think of specific private courses. This is due to changes the park department would make - mainly parking and modifications for safety reasons. And things like design done for low usage that would need to change to accommodate crowds - fairway conflict mainly (too close to each other and/or crossing, baskets too close to tees, etc).

Like I said.....I believe that removing everything except the course itself from the review criteria is the best way to get consistent measure of a subjective topic.

That addresses two questions.

If a top-notch private course (pick your favorite) went public, and the parks department kept the layout and maintenance, you'd probably rate it the same.

But of course they probably wouldn't keep in the same, due to safety issues, adding other park uses, and other considerations.

Which is another way to say that private courses aren't rated higher because they're private, but more often better because they're private.

At least at the top, because private course owners are freer in their design, and likely to care more than the parks department.

Also on average, because there'll be more beginner courses and mediocre courses and multi-use property courses among the public courses than private courses, sure to bring down the average.

 

[Dave242]

Well.....I guess my thoughts and definitions of Objective course ratings criteria is different that DGCR's. While I don't think I am wrong, I think that I am wrong to ever have had expectations/hopes that reviews and ratings will ever be other than what DGCR defines as objective. :doh: :wall: :gross: :thmbdown:

From here:

Category I, "Essential properties of a good course"
Baskets: (condition, make, etc)
Tee Pads: (material, condition, level?, etc)
Tee Signs/Maps/Markers: (present?, condition, clarity, accuracy)

Category II "Combine with cat I to make a great course"
General Course Design: (flow, loop back to start?, crossing fairways?, well defined fairways, etc)
Foliage Maintenance: (underbrush?, poison oak?, stinging nettles?, blackberries, etc, trees trimmed accordingly, grass cut regularly?)
Benches & Trash bins: (present?, condition?, emptied regularly?)

Category III "bonus attributes to make an excellent course"
Elevation: (present?, optimized?, etc)
Epic Holes: (There are some holes you will never forget throwing)
Camping
Restrooms
Running water
Variety of hole distances
Variety of shots required
Mix of tight technical & Open bombs
Overall challenge
Parking
Scenic beauty
Crowded or not?
Regular events to participate in
Attitude of locals
and on and on and on.

------------

Course/airway design is relegated to simply bonus points? Come on man......

On each of these points ask yourself, "Due to this point how much am I more likely to play this course over and over and over?"

 

[Dave242]

If a top-notch private course (pick your favorite) went public, and the parks department kept the layout and maintenance, you'd probably rate it the same.

You are right - I would rate it exactly the same, but the vast majority of DGCR users do not put the same effort in and do not use the same criteria as I do....so they would rate it much lower.

Which is another way to say that private courses aren't rated higher because they're private, but more often better because they're private.

In effect yes, but to be more accurate it should be stated "private courses get away with many of their sins/shortcomings scot-free where as public courses' ratings get hammered for those exact same problems"

 

[notapro]

C'mon man... Campton Hills a 5... That's like the prime example of a subjective rating.

Unless Blue level players like their hole lengtha at 175'. :|

 

[Dave242]

C'mon man... Campton Hills a 5... That's like the prime example of a subjective rating.

Unless Blue level players like their hole lengtha at 175'. :|

Every review from everyone is subjective....and my goal in my reviews is to have a consistent way of quantifying and reporting each and every area of subjectivity that goes into what is important to me.

I succeeded in doing that with Campton Hills....with the caveat that it is perfectly (and uniquely in my travels) suited as a putter-only deuce-or-die course. And I made that very clear in my review.

An exceptionally fun and unique course deserves an unique review and rating....even from an otherwise "soulless" reviewer like me. :thmbup: