Do you have to play a course to review it?

[thrembo]

I think that most of my reviews are from the "Not playing in the actual fairway" perspective lol. I've only reviewed two courses that I haven't played, lol. The first was an accident. I thought I was reviewing a course I just played but I accidentally put the review onto a course that I hadn't played yet (Why do so many courses in FL have Heritage in their name???) Of course, I quickly played the other course and redid my review. The other more recent time I "reviewed" a course that I couldn't play because it no longer exists and I was trying to save the rest of y'all from making the mile-long walk to where the course used to be from the parking lot.

 

[DavidSauls]

More devil's advocacy as I neither write reviews nor do I have any actual problem with the methodology on this site:
What specifically makes playing the course superior to walking it and paying attention as you do so in terms of being able to review it sensibly? Analogies are nice and all but they don't really address the issue in more than a superficial sense. In some ways I think I would write a more well rounded review without worrying about my often crappy shots. You may see a few details on a course while playing that you would not have seen otherwise but imo you are just as likely to miss something semi-important because you are over in the schule not playing the actual fairway. YMMV.

I don't know. I walked Perkerson while injured, but was walking with friends who were playing, and think I have as good an assessment of the course as I would had I been able to throw.

On the other hand, I'd probably walked Winthrop Gold 10 times as a spectator, before getting a chance to play, and playing gave me a better appreciation of it. Perhaps that's because the 1040ish players I'd been watching gave a misleading impression.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'll footnote that if you walk a course as a tournament spectator, you may not see the exact lines from the tees. That could be a bigger deal on wooded courses and with low ceilings.

 

[ejvogie]

I think we're all missing the point here. The (theoretical?) person in this scenario was at a course and did not play it. Shameful.

 

[Surge5]

Let's say you go to a course to watch a tournament (pro or otherwise) and end up walking every hole and watching hundreds of throws.
Would it be acceptable for you to submit a review for that course?
.
.
.
I say "Yes", but I am curious what others think. opcorn:

No. (Which in Spanish is No)

 

[jenb]

Walking the course as a tournament spectator, or even playing the tournament, is still going to result in a somewhat skewed review. Presumably, you're seeing the course at its best because the tournament is held at the best time of year and after recent grooming and maintenance efforts. From just one or a few rounds, even experienced course designers can fail to recognize that a course doesn't drain well and certain tee pads are underwater when it rains, etc. I find reviews by locals who play a course year round to be more helpful when I'm deciding whether to make a trip out.

 

[elmexdela]

whats the difference in walking it vs walking it and stopping every 250ft

 

[itsRudy]

I find reviews by locals who play a course year round to be more helpful when I'm deciding whether to make a trip out.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I like looking how many times someone played a course and update my reviews often to reflect evolving thoughts on the site.

OTOH, homecourse bias often needs an outsider's view.

Not sure what ideal time of year is though, I like playing late autumn and winter. The colder the better! Nothing nicer than no brush hiding brightly colored circles.

 

[brentjacobs]

To me, walking a course is nothing like playing a course. The experience is vastly different.

To the OPs question "would it be acceptable" to submit a review of a course if you only walk it - Per DGCR standards, as mentioned a couple times already, it is not.

…When reviewing a course on DGCR it asks that you only review a course before a certain amount of time has elapsed since playing it AND that you played at least half the course or something like that. Maybe the majority of the holes, not sure of the wording…

Shocking how many people have never read the standards that wolfhaley mentions. These pop up every time somebody clicks to review a course.

 

[Steve West]

whats the difference in walking it vs walking it and stopping every 250ft

I've never walked a course with the idea of reviewing it, but I have walked many courses in the process of (re)designing, as well as when spectating.

When playing, I am focused on finding the one line that will give me the best chance of successfully executing it to get the lowest score.

When designing, I am thinking about the several possible good lines various players might choose, plus the consequences if the disc goes to thousands of other places.

When spectating, I am hardly thinking about the course at all - I am focused on the performances and emotions of the players.

 

[mndiscg]

I frequently update course conditions on courses that I drive (or bike) past. Many of those courses are in the middle of nowhere and some update is better than no update.

I have also reviewed courses that I didn't play in their entirety. Events on the course, flooding, trees down, excessive water carries that I can't make, poor signage/baskets not numbered, etc. I always make my best effort to play all the holes on a course but sometimes it doesn't work out. I wouldn't review a course that I didn't play at all but... it would be really easy to review a course %99 as well as if you played if you thoroughly walked the course. I find it easy to imagine my discs flight path if I stand on a tee box.

 

[DFrah]

There's a difference between "COULD I write a good review of a course without playing it?" and "SHOULD I write a good review of a course without playing it?"

The answer to the first question (for most of us here) is clearly "yes". We can split hairs and agree/disagree about what level of "experiencing the course" is needed to write a good review. Is watching tournament coverage online enough? Watching in person? Walking the fairways? Personally, I think it kind of depends on the course and on what the observer is paying attention to. Example! There is a new elementary school course that just got added to the site ( https://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=13611 ). I visited a couple months ago, but could not play because school was in session. I spent about two minutes driving around the school grounds in my car and without any more info than that, I could tell you confidently that it's somewhere between a 0.0 and 1.0 rating and write a lengthy, accurate review to back that up.

But that's irrelevant and I'm not going to do that - because the answer to the second question, I think, is "no". brentjacobs, wolfhaley, and others mentioned the guidelines explicitly given on this site each time we go to post a review. I can think of a couple of times where I made exceptions to the "played the majority of holes" rule, but it was only because I found that many holes were unplayable, the water carry was too big for me, or something like that. I have never reviewed a course that I didn't intend to play in its entirety upon my arrival at it.

 

[wellsbranch250]

Let's say you go to a course to watch a tournament (pro or otherwise) and end up walking every hole and watching hundreds of throws.
Would it be acceptable for you to submit a review for that course?

Not really, but if someone did, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I think there are several reviewers on here that could post a review of a course that they walked instead of played, and no one would know.

What specifically makes playing the course superior to walking it and paying attention as you do so in terms of being able to review it sensibly?

I think the difference is the complete and total immersion into the metaphysical experience. I once wrote a review of a Florida course before I even played it (curiosity to see if I was able), and completely scraped it after playing it. The emotions of playing changes the perspective from my own personal observance. Bennybennybenny doesn't write "I shall play here nevermore" unless he plays that train wreck course.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=10813&page=1&sort=date_desc&mode=rev#81159

 

[Countchunkula]

Put me in the yeah you could, but you probably shouldn't camp.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

On the other hand, I'd probably walked Winthrop Gold 10 times as a spectator, before getting a chance to play, and playing gave me a better appreciation of it. Perhaps that's because the 1040ish players I'd been watching gave a misleading impression.

I've never walked a course with the idea of reviewing it, but I have walked many courses in the process of (re)designing, as well as when spectating.

When playing, I am focused on finding the one line that will give me the best chance of successfully executing it to get the lowest score.

When designing, I am thinking about the several possible good lines various players might choose, plus the consequences if the disc goes to thousands of other places.

When spectating, I am hardly thinking about the course at all - I am focused on the performances and emotions of the players.

These make a ton of sense to me.

 

[Mando]

To me, walking a course is nothing like playing a course. The experience is vastly different.

To the OPs question "would it be acceptable" to submit a review of a course if you only walk it - Per DGCR standards, as mentioned a couple times already, it is not.



Shocking how many people have never read the standards that wolfhaley mentions. These pop up every time somebody clicks to review a course.

I'd rather have someone walk the entire course and review it, rather than playing 10 out of 18 holes and calling it a day.

 

[glassila]

The DGCR rule "Only rate a course if you have played a majority of the holes" pretty much puts an end to my question.

I just thought it would be reasonable to rate a course that you caddied for someone on or followed a group on especially if it was for multiple rounds. I realize that's not the same as playing that course.

 

[Steve West]

The DGCR rule "Only rate a course if you have played a majority of the holes" pretty much puts an end to my question.

I just thought it would be reasonable to rate a course that you caddied for someone on or followed a group on especially if it was for multiple rounds. I realize that's not the same as playing that course.

Caddied is pretty darn close to the same as playing.

 

[txmxer]

As long as there is a sub category called catfish reviews.

 

[wolfhaley]

whats the difference in walking it vs walking it and stopping every 250ft

You still got a good 265' in you. When fresh. I'm maxing out about 239' nowadays.

There's a difference. If you read one of my reviews and could see a Jomez style overhead flight tracker of my shots, it'd look like a failed polygraph test. But it's the truth.

If you just walked the course and wrote a review, the review would hold water to most people. The overhead view would be much more linear and straightforward looking. But it's a lie.