Dave chose not to actually review courses for many of his reviews. He simply issued letter grades. The reason his voting numbers are so bad is because an overwhelming reviews don't say a single thing about the course. So, when you're asked to decide if his review was helpful or not, it's easy to see why his ratio is so poor. Here's a refresher of the copy and paste review template he used:
Pros: What I like and how this course stacks up:
1) Holes with good risk/reward -- B
2) Holes that have rewarding birdie opportunities -- 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 -- A
5) Multi-shot holes with defined landing zones, good risk/reward and multiple options to play them -- NA
Other Thoughts: I ranked this course subjectively based on my own personal enjoyment factor...more accurately my "personal addiction factor". Since I have played a decent number of courses (115 18-hole, 50 9-hole as of early 2009), my hope is that players/explorers who have similar tastes will find my ratings list helpful as they chose courses to play and explore.
Over time, I expect to fill some of my reviews in with more descriptive verbiage...if what I say adds anything to what has already been written. For now, my list is more important to me than the verbiage of my reviews.
I fully expect others with different tastes/philosophies to disagree with me. See my profile for my rating philosophy.
His reviews are helpful though. Here is an example of one of his reviews:
Here is what I personally like and how this course stacks up in my list of 18 hole courses (over 260 played so far)....tied for 10th place:
1) Holes with good risk/reward. Fair, but harsh punishment for bad decisions or execution. == A
(Amazing in this category overall - very appropriate for Blue level players. All the open holes provide a challenge, even though punishment is minimal for mistakes. Several of the wooded holes are on the "plinko" side (gaps too narrow to navigate by skill - luck factors in a little too much for my liking), but only hole 24 is a true "poke and hope" fairway.)
2) Holes that have rewarding birdie opportunities for me (I rate only from the long tees). I'm a Blue level player (950ish skill) who throws 300' accurately, 360' max. == A
(This course is almost perfect in this regard. The 2-3 must-have/gimme birdies are balanced out by hard Par 3s. In my book, my only very minor quibble is 11 (353' - hard 3) & 18 (389' - easy 4) holes in the woods are tweener holes almost always leaving a non-challenging upshot since they are too tight to go for, so conservative play will almost always get you within 100-150'.)
3) More wooded than open - lots of variety of shots required caused by hole shape and topography. == A+
(Perfection! As stated in #1, the open holes force accurate landing even if specific flight paths are not forced. The wooded portions force you to make a wide variety of specific shot shapes. And, you are bound to be majorly tested in your creative recovery game.)
4) Natural beauty (Appalachian beauty preferred) and seclusion. == A+
(The front is a beautiful manicured park, but very remote and isolated from other activities - other than the first and last 2 holes. The back/wooded section (13 holes) is as beautifully wooded as anywhere I have ever been! And, completely secluded from civilization and road noise. Stunning!)
5) Bonus points for multi-throw holes with defined landing zones, good risk/reward and multiple options to play them. == 2 bonus points (out of a possible 5)
(The 5 Par 4s are appreciated, but 2 of them were very short (4 & 18), and the long open ones (9 & 26) did not necessarily reward great placement on the drive. I was very fortunately to run into Greg Kurtz (designer - very much enjoyed meeting you and the gang) and he asked me for thoughts/suggestions....after hearing me out on my effusive praise. I mentioned the only improvement I can think of is adding better Par 4s that have defined landing zones which reward ideal placement within, and make it a real challenge to achieve par if you are in a non-ideal part of the landing zone. There seems to be room in the park for this....but that is my impression only.)
PS: I grade courses on a school grading system...60-100 with no F's and the average/center point being a B-....been doing that for a long time and started transferring my ratings list to the similar 11 level rating system here when this cool/amazing site came online.
I gave this course a grade of 96....which is the low end of an A+, but translates a 5.0 on the DGCR scale. This course benefited slightly by having 27 holes - filler holes are forgivable and more variety is possible.
How man unique are needed for Diamond? Could we ask people to thumb a review to get him there?
250 unique voters minimum but he has too many thumbs down to qualify anyway.
"In addition to the above requirements, your unhelpful vote count must be less than 45% of your total helpful vote count to qualify as a trusted reviewer."
