• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

How you can tell course ratings are BS on here

Gotta think of this too...if 30 people sign up so they can review flyboy and find the process fun maybe they will start reviewing other courses, using the other features etc...

That is more of an issue with Flip and Idle. This course does not have as many people who reviewed it as their only review.
I have looked at it from every statistical angle and the reviews have nothing that would indicate that they are bogus.
The evidence would show that this course is just a nice solid course and thanks to Kelly we got a rare look at the past and future of the course.
I think the OP has been beaten into submission and is now headed over to DGR :popcorn:
 
Unless this changes:
"Absolutely no walk-ons. Contact owner for permission to play and directions."
it should not be a true 5. I think a course regularly accessible to the public with normal hours, whether pay for play or not, should be worth a quarter to half a disc, at least on the overall scale used here. As usual, the design and amenities get jammed together so you don't know if a 4.5 star course like FlyBoy (IMO) has a 5-star design and 4-star amenities or vice versa.

There are other things that keep this from a 5 level course even using the relativistic versus absolute scale we use here. No dual tees. The rubber is okay but concrete would make it feel like the design had been perfected and was more permanent.

It feels a little unsettling shooting around all of the private property of other residents there. And, this is personal preference not specifically related to these ratings, but I like courses that can be well groomed but in a more wild environment without homes or commercial areas in view. About half the course has that wild look and is awesome. I'm not sure there was a portolet at the far reaches of the course which could make it a little tougher with all the neighbors around.

No other course requires you to move away from your lie due to occasional air traffic. Interesting diversion for rec play but not necessarily for tournament play. Tom Monroe and I had several design suggestions from our September visit which could improve the layout (some may already have been done since then).

I can understand why so many 5s have been awarded because it feels like that when you're there and playing. It's only on reflection afterwards that some of these elements need to be considered where maybe it doesn't get all the way there, at least yet.
 
Last edited:
Unless this changes:
"Absolutely no walk-ons. Contact owner for permission to play and directions."
it should not be a true 5. I think a course regularly accessible to the public with normal hours, whether pay for play or not, should be worth a quarter to half a disc, at least on the overall scale used here. As usual, the design and amenities get jammed together so you don't know if a 4.5 star course like FlyBoy (IMO) has a 5-star design and 4-star amenities or vice versa.

There are other things that keep this from a 5 level course even using the relativistic versus absolute scale we use here. No dual tees. The rubber is okay but concrete would make it feel like the design had been perfected and was more permanent.

It feels a little unsettling shooting around all of the private property of other residents there. And, this is personal preference not specifically related to these ratings, but I like courses that can be well groomed but in a more wild environment without homes or commercial areas in view. About half the course has that wild look and is awesome.

No other course requires you to move away from your lie due to occasional air traffic. Interesting diversion for rec play but not necessarily for tournament play. Tom Monroe and I had several design suggestions from our September visit which could improve the layout (some may already have been done since then).

I can understand why so many 5s have been awarded because it feels like that when you're there and playing. It's only on reflection afterwards that some of these elements need to be considered where maybe it doesn't get all the way there, at least yet.

I can't agree with the beginning because if that changes the course ceases to exist.

On top of that, if we cannot schedule playing a course like this, or the IDGC, or any of the other big destinations then we probably couldn't manage planning the trip to play them anyways.
 
I agree with remote settings. No need to see or play around multiple homes on any course. It simply detracts from the game when some hose-beast is yelling out her front door to her pregnant teenage daughter "hey, get me some friggin smokes when your at the IGA!". Of course, that's not gonna be heard at this upscale neighborhood with a private runway service, but you catch my drift? Or maybe not, that's cuz we all have personal preferences. Rate the course how you feel, but take some creative writing classes so you can elaborate on why you felt some way or didn't feel another way and how that impacted your rating. Thoughtful reviews, even if full of personal and subjective ramblings, are much more important than the rating. Use the other thoughts section to your advantage to provide discussion about your thoughts on the course, how you felt, what you personally like, and comparisons to other courses you've played.
 
Unless this changes:
"Absolutely no walk-ons. Contact owner for permission to play and directions."
it should not be a true 5. I think a course regularly accessible to the public with normal hours, whether pay for play or not, should be worth a quarter to half a disc, at least on the overall scale used here. As usual, the design and amenities get jammed together so you don't know if a 4.5 star course like FlyBoy (IMO) has a 5-star design and 4-star amenities or vice versa.

There are other things that keep this from a 5 level course even using the relativistic versus absolute scale we use here. No dual tees. The rubber is okay but concrete would make it feel like the design had been perfected and was more permanent.

It feels a little unsettling shooting around all of the private property of other residents there. And, this is personal preference not specifically related to these ratings, but I like courses that can be well groomed but in a more wild environment without homes or commercial areas in view. About half the course has that wild look and is awesome. I'm not sure there was a portolet at the far reaches of the course which could make it a little tougher with all the neighbors around.

No other course requires you to move away from your lie due to occasional air traffic. Interesting diversion for rec play but not necessarily for tournament play. Tom Monroe and I had several design suggestions from our September visit which could improve the layout (some may already have been done since then).

I can understand why so many 5s have been awarded because it feels like that when you're there and playing. It's only on reflection afterwards that some of these elements need to be considered where maybe it doesn't get all the way there, at least yet.

I agree with much of what you say (some already in my unfinished review = 4.5) but the whole experience is certainly "five star" as far as disc golf has progressed.
 
Does flyboy have a nice downhill bomber (or at least a touch shot down some extreme hill)? Does flyboy have some very unique terrain like washout ravines and ridges that offer sharp and drastic elevation changes that require shot placement or areas for risky pin placements? Does it have tight tunnel wooded shots?

If not, it's probably not gonna get a 5 from me if (when) I get to play it. BUT, that's because of my preferences and I'll make sure to describe why in detail during my review. The text is what will count.

To me, driving 1660' (or whatever) down a runway isn't like playing real disc golf. It's just like throwing at a driving range if you ask me. Even the long 1300' hole at highbridge feels like this, but the elevation off the tee makes it cool at first, and the trees near the pin offer some shot shaping. It's just my preference that long 1000'+ long, flat, and open holes without obstacles and then wide open greens are lame. Maybe others have the same opinions. Maybe not. It's cool.
 
The lake shot is downhill, 16 is a big down hill, 10 is a big uphill, 4 is a big uphill, 11-12-13 are up and down.

Terrain- Fields, runways, woods, lake sides, streams, swampy areas, wooded paths.

Tunnels- Yes

Pin positions- on a fallen tree, on the sides of the lake, on an outcropping, in front of a stream etc..

There are 27 holes...I would go out on a limb and say you could throw every shot in your bag and every disc (if it truly has a purpose) at least once.

And BTW, I have no problems with the 4.5s just usually the reasoning behind them. I don't think the place deserves anything under 4.5 but again, not going to give you bad feedback if you did. One of Avery's cons was too many holes...c'mon dude...really?

Oh and don't forget the runway is a 95' affair with OB on either side that surprisingly is not easy to stay on so its not like you are throwing full steam without worries.
 
Does flyboy have a nice downhill bomber (or at least a touch shot down some extreme hill)? Does flyboy have some very unique terrain like washout ravines and ridges that offer sharp and drastic elevation changes that require shot placement or areas for risky pin placements? Does it have tight tunnel wooded shots?

If not, it's probably not gonna get a 5 from me if (when) I get to play it. BUT, that's because of my preferences and I'll make sure to describe why in detail during my review. The text is what will count.

To me, driving 1660' (or whatever) down a runway isn't like playing real disc golf. It's just like throwing at a driving range if you ask me. Even the long 1300' hole at highbridge feels like this, but the elevation off the tee makes it cool at first, and the trees near the pin offer some shot shaping. It's just my preference that long 1000'+ long, flat, and open holes without obstacles and then wide open greens are lame. Maybe others have the same opinions. Maybe not. It's cool.

I agree with your opinion and thats what it is all about. I have my taste and they don't jive with a lot of players either.

I have heard the 1600 foot hole is actually a long flat hole...obvious..but that the width of the fairway actually demands a string of precise drives or you will land OOB. I think this is actually genius as many will be tempted to unload but you have to keep a big open air shot on a relatively narrow strip of land. It is still risk reward as you may be tempted to throw big 4 times in a row but this could land 4 OOB or a quadruple circle 10 or you could throw 5-6 more controlled drives and skate in with a 7. I actually find that interesting and lets not forget the wind with airport wind flags blowing. I doubt theres a hole like that anywhere else. Ive played some open drives where OOB lines one side but never was I required to throw 5 big arm drives with precision in a row. That might seem boring but consider the sheer challenge of throwing 5 football fields in a row but the fairway is actually less than half a football field?

Reminds me of Idlewild in I thought that 1000 foot open hole would be dull but then there were slihght undulations that were optimal landing zones and I was actually thinking it was one of the more interesting holes Ive played. Pictures and stats sometimes dont capture the thrill of playing a specific hole.
 
Yes, it's got all that.

The runway shot was fun, moreso at night with it illuminated (thanks Flyboy!) but being 90' wide and as long as it is it's mostly throw your straightest bomb 3 or 5 times with the pin having a nearby OB, which is decent placement to finish the hole.
 
To me, driving 1660' (or whatever) down a runway isn't like playing real disc golf. It's just like throwing at a driving range if you ask me. Even the long 1300' hole at highbridge feels like this, but the elevation off the tee makes it cool at first, and the trees near the pin offer some shot shaping. It's just my preference that long 1000'+ long, flat, and open holes without obstacles and then wide open greens are lame. Maybe others have the same opinions. Maybe not. It's cool.

The 1600' hole is defined by the runway lights and if you go outside you are OB. It is roughly 90' wide which sounds generous but it is harder than you think when you are throwing as hard as you can. Most go out at least once.
 
Reminds me of Idlewild in I thought that 1000 foot open hole would be dull but then there were slihght undulations that were optimal landing zones and I was actually thinking it was one of the more interesting holes Ive played. Pictures and stats sometimes dont capture the thrill of playing a specific hole.

This year though the fairway was cut (100' or so) from fields of sunflowers.
Brilliant!
 
The lake shot is downhill, 16 is a big down hill, 10 is a big uphill, 4 is a big uphill, 11-12-13 are up and down.

Terrain- Fields, runways, woods, lake sides, streams, swampy areas, wooded paths.

Tunnels- Yes

Pin positions- on a fallen tree, on the sides of the lake, on an outcropping, in front of a stream etc..

There are 27 holes...I would go out on a limb and say you could throw every shot in your bag and every disc (if it truly has a purpose) at least once.

And BTW, I have no problems with the 4.5s just usually the reasoning behind them. I don't think the place deserves anything under 4.5 but again, not going to give you bad feedback if you did. One of Avery's cons was too many holes...c'mon dude...really?

Oh and don't forget the runway is a 95' affair with OB on either side that surprisingly is not easy to stay on so its not like you are throwing full steam without worries.

Sounds more appealing.

Avery is lame, too many holes is a LAME con!
 
Does flyboy have a nice downhill bomber (or at least a touch shot down some extreme hill)? Does flyboy have some very unique terrain like washout ravines and ridges that offer sharp and drastic elevation changes that require shot placement or areas for risky pin placements? Does it have tight tunnel wooded shots?

If not, it's probably not gonna get a 5 from me if (when) I get to play it. BUT, that's because of my preferences and I'll make sure to describe why in detail during my review. The text is what will count.

To me, driving 1660' (or whatever) down a runway isn't like playing real disc golf. It's just like throwing at a driving range if you ask me. Even the long 1300' hole at highbridge feels like this, but the elevation off the tee makes it cool at first, and the trees near the pin offer some shot shaping. It's just my preference that long 1000'+ long, flat, and open holes without obstacles and then wide open greens are lame. Maybe others have the same opinions. Maybe not. It's cool.


i dont think its fair to rate a course less because the land that was set aside for it isn't a mountain or fantastic park. more important is how they used the land available and the features on it. BRP is basically flat as heck but every natural/unnatural feature is full utilized. at no point playing that course did i think moving the hole this way or that way would improve the course. now just because there are no hills anywhere on the land it automatically can never be a 5star? thats not fair. by that logical there is no course in Kansas that could every be a 5star.
 
Surprisingly, the runway is not even close to level except side to side. There's about 15-20 ft elevation drop from tee to pin. Hole 21 is probably the biggest bomber downhill hole that uses the other end of the runway which runs downhill heading toward the FlyBoy hangar which is about 1/3 of the way down the runway and at the lowest point along it.
 
Top