I have 344 marked played on here in 35 states plus I know of 12 other cpurses not listed here so I have over 350 total.
-
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)
Members Who Have Played 100 Courses!
- Thread starter The Valkyrie Kid
- Start date
I have 344 marked on here as being played in 35 states plus I know of 12 courses for myself not listed here so over 350 total.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,015
I echo that. I have never reviewed a course that I didn't play the whole thing. There have been I couple times where i got poured mid round and thought "why does it have to rain now!" only to be back a few months later to finish it up. It addition, a few of my favorite shots have also come on some pretty crummy courses.
Well I've played vicariously through Valkyrie Kid so that should substantially increase my courses played. :|
I doubt DGCR has any interest in refereeing these largely personal claims. They're like ace claims. What constitutes playing a course---what constitutes an actual course, for that matter---is largely up to the user. A couple of years ago there was a guy claiming to have played 2800 courses; besides the astounding number, the ones he checked on DGCR led many to have serious doubts about his claims. But he can still make them. There are no payouts to the top finishers, so not much to fight over.
I check off courses where I played enough to have an idea of the course---a much lower threshold than a review. I do it for myself, just to keep track of courses I've visited, and not for anyone else. Of course, with my modest list, no one else would care.
justin
Double Eagle Member
Exactly! Tracking courses played is a personal thing in that it's for your own benefit, no one else's.
There is one 18 hole course I only played 9 or 10 holes of on a road trip many years ago. I do hope to finish it up one day but the courses I've marked as played is 100% so I can review what I have or haven't played and look at things like what my current most-played state is. My course count is not something that anyone else should have an opinion about.
Having played "lots" of courses does not equal being a better player, just a happier one because I hate replaying courses when there are still new-to-me courses to be explored.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 3,465
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 3,465
You have your own criteria . . . and it seems so does everyone else who plays a lot of courses . . . so do we each all listen to our own hearts and go with our own totals or do we have the guts to compare them to each others lists and have to scrutinize each course for hours based on a number of criteria decided by 2 individuals instead of some impartial entity?
Avery and I are both approaching 1000 courses (50 or so left to go for each of us) and we both wanted to try to play our 1000th together like a handful of those in the past have done . . . the problem . . . while we have never verified anyone else's list as to what constitutes a course . . . now we need to define that for our 1000th . . . but how can I compare my list to his list without some sort of criteria . . . I have no problem defining the criteria and cross referencing courses with him to make sure what we agree on what constitutes a course played . . . but then I also look at it like this . . . why can't all courses just be courses. Did anyone else prior to Avery and myself take that into account when they played their 1000th? I am not questioning anyone's integrity . . . just wondering what counted for them and what didn't . . . because as of right now I have a handful of what DGCR determines to be "Practice Areas" instead of courses. I am not arguing the differentiation as I travel a lot and would like to know if it is an actual course or just definition. I also know Gregg Hossfeld and Avery do not see eye to eye when it comes to old (or target) courses . . . Gregg has played dozens . . . maybe . . .hundreds of courses when target courses were the standard so i think those should count for his total . . . but maybe not mine since I came along after the target course era. At what point were target courses extinct or no longer the standard? I have played a few . . that have also upgraded to baskets . . so I still would count them . . . but which ones do I leave off my list?
I have no problem putting forward my thoughts on what defines a new course but even still it will never be 100% with anyone elses list. There will always be a question about one course or another on someones list or someones rules may not be the same. How do we define this?
SO DO we each come up with our own list . . . and treat them independently . . or do we consult all those who have crossed the 1000th course threshold in the past to determine if and when we have then subsequently crossed the barrier?
While I would love for a set of criteria agreed upon by all those who have passed 1000 . . . it seems far fetched to think that will come as I know of a few who do not agree with each other.
I hate hashtags but this whole discussion about what constitutes a course seems frivolous #toomuchtimeonmyhands #firstworlddiscgolfproblems
I'm not sure how much it matters. If you and Avery meet to play your 1000th, does it really matter if, by your standards, he's only playing his 991st? He's meeting his landmark goal, you're meeting your landmark goal, you can share your experience together.
Which doesn't mean it's not worth discussion. In the exchange of ideas, perhaps you'll change your opinion on how you wish to construct your own list. Perhaps someone will have an idea that you're happier using for yourself Or vice versa.
The 1000-course club is small enough that you guys could, if you wish, agree on criteria among yourself. Most members have enough margin on their list that any changes wouldn't bump them out.
Even if a standard is agreed upon, it's an honor system. No one's verifying that the members actually played those courses, or played them completely, or the extinct and temp tournament courses.
Which doesn't mean it's not worth discussion. In the exchange of ideas, perhaps you'll change your opinion on how you wish to construct your own list. Perhaps someone will have an idea that you're happier using for yourself Or vice versa.
The 1000-course club is small enough that you guys could, if you wish, agree on criteria among yourself. Most members have enough margin on their list that any changes wouldn't bump them out.
Even if a standard is agreed upon, it's an honor system. No one's verifying that the members actually played those courses, or played them completely, or the extinct and temp tournament courses.
But here's another issue for list-makers: Overlapping layouts.
A few courses have overlapping layouts, sometimes significantly different.
* At what point do they constitute separate courses?
* If they don't, can you say you've played the entire course if you've only played one of the layouts?
A few courses have overlapping layouts, sometimes significantly different.
* At what point do they constitute separate courses?
* If they don't, can you say you've played the entire course if you've only played one of the layouts?
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,233
According to the DGCR ground rules for reviewing a course, if you played 10 out of 18 holes you can review it. The rule used to be that you had to play the entire course before reviewing it, which is the way it should be,but that was too much trouble to referee.
I personally will not go to a course and not play all of it. I have not reviewed a course that I did not play all of. There are a couple of exceptions where I could not actually find all the holes and wanted to review to let others know the issues.
You'll get four more in on our 2 day trip. Two more for me... Are there some in DFW you haven't played?
I've only played in two states and have played over 100 in Texas.
I was lucky enough to play my 100th course during one of, if not my favorite round ever at Sugaree. Didn't even plan it like that, but it was cool how that worked out.
Yes there are. New courses going in all the time. I'm also thinking about detouring on the way out to play more. Ive played in 9 states and looking to add more. 37 in MS and 37 in TX. Ms did not have very many for a long time and I played out your way with my bro a lot. Tx will probably forge ahead again this summer lol
Had to update what courses i have recently played, and just realized I played my 100th last Saturday, in West Palm Beach. That was kind of cool to realize, but also makes me think how many more will i play living in South Florida.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,692
i think i'm with David, whatever it means for each person.
but i'm interested in your opinion as well as Gregg and Avery. do you think target courses should count? seems to me like they should, regardless of what year it is, so long as it's an established course. is Gregg of the same opinion as me? and Avery thinks they shouldn't count?
i personally don't count practice areas or multiple layouts but i do count private, unlisted, or tourney temp layouts. so i consider my course count to be 5 fewer than it actually says.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 3,465
I still haven't set my criteria permanently (need to do that soon as I approach 1000 and need to mesh my list with Averys) but I do agree that temp courses (if setup for a tourney on an annual basis or if they can be easily duplicated and played by others) would count. I am torn on the target courses . . . only because I want Hos to get credit for the ones he played (WHEN IT WAS STILL within the norm for the sport) but if I see a target course listed now I am not so sure I would consider it a disc golf course . . . but back int he day . . . those should count. I do not know if Hos thinks current target courses should count or just the ones in the past.
You say you don't count practice areas but what differentiates a practice area from a course. Let's say there are three baskets and 3 tees . . . or is it only a practice area if no tees are listed or marked? Are these courses or a practice areas because whomever listed it on DGCR considered it just for practice? We cannot go just by DGCR definitions IMO because it is user driven. If DGCR was structured around specific criteria and checked with each property . . . then it would make sense to follow this definition but I am not sure that is happening when anyone can list a course and edit the information on the main page.
The hardest things I am having in regards to deciding if it is a new course is remodels . . . how many holes need to change? 4, 6, 9, or does it take a whole re-design to call it a new course? What about 9 hole temp layouts added to an existing course for a tournament? Is that a new course or just a bunch of temp holes attached to the existing course?
Another anomaly would be how some courses are treated in different areas. We have Dretzka Park which was originally 18 holes numbered 1-18. Then 9 more holes were added and numbered A1-A9 and treated as a separate 9 holes even though the locals cross the road at 12 tot he alternate #5, play A5-A9, A1-A4 and then cross back over. To me that is 1 course on the same property even though it was added later . . . and thats the way it is listed on DGCR . . . but there are a lot of places that would list these as 2 courses. SO how on earth do i reconcile all of that . . . thats why I am saying its pretty much up to each person to decide for themselves what constitutes a course. At no time in the future will everyone agree with what makes a new course played . . . at least not across the board.
Anyone else care to add to this discussion?
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,692
i have played 2 practice areas and neither of them had tees or "holes", they were just baskets in an area where you could throw at them. i think that's a decent definition but it's hard to police when people are creating course pages. i've also played a 3 hole course that has tee signs numbered 1-3. i can see the argument for calling it a course but to me that's less of a course than a 9 hole target course with established tees and marked targets.
as standard as baskets are in the game now, i'm not sure i'm ready to say that baskets are what define a course. in my mind, an established layout is what defines a course. i don't see how what year it is plays any factor. what about a target course in a third world country? it could be a well-thought layout so is it fair to say it's not a course just because it lacks the unreasonably expensive amenity of baskets?
the redesigns are a gray area so i just don't count any of them. i feel like it's natural that courses change over time and even if layouts change, it's still the same course in the same location with the same name. for the same logic i don't count tourney temp holes on an existing course as a separate course, whether it's 3 extra holes or 9. that said, i could see an argument for 18 temp holes on the same property as an existing course being called a separate course. never had that experience myself.
interesting point with Dretzka. i don't have many tricky examples like that on my list but Badlands and Blairwitch in Denver comes to mind. listed as 2 courses here but i could see it argued either way. i feel like the design intention should be the guiding principle, but maybe also informed by what the locals typically do.
i agree that we will all not agree. i'd also point out that Tim's criteria for what constitutes separate courses and redesigns is informed by stuff like Scorebook effectiveness, not just our high-minded ideals.
as standard as baskets are in the game now, i'm not sure i'm ready to say that baskets are what define a course. in my mind, an established layout is what defines a course. i don't see how what year it is plays any factor. what about a target course in a third world country? it could be a well-thought layout so is it fair to say it's not a course just because it lacks the unreasonably expensive amenity of baskets?
the redesigns are a gray area so i just don't count any of them. i feel like it's natural that courses change over time and even if layouts change, it's still the same course in the same location with the same name. for the same logic i don't count tourney temp holes on an existing course as a separate course, whether it's 3 extra holes or 9. that said, i could see an argument for 18 temp holes on the same property as an existing course being called a separate course. never had that experience myself.
interesting point with Dretzka. i don't have many tricky examples like that on my list but Badlands and Blairwitch in Denver comes to mind. listed as 2 courses here but i could see it argued either way. i feel like the design intention should be the guiding principle, but maybe also informed by what the locals typically do.
i agree that we will all not agree. i'd also point out that Tim's criteria for what constitutes separate courses and redesigns is informed by stuff like Scorebook effectiveness, not just our high-minded ideals.
Similar threads
