Movement in top 10

[dreadlock86]

Well playing devils advocate here the review was based solely on the short tees. Idk how much I would consider a review that played the short layout and then complained that the pars were too generous among other things. But this is an opinion site so oh well life goes on

^^^this

they are well-written reviews that give an honest opinion of the layouts that he played. but i still think it is kinda bull$hit and not much different than not playing an entire course before reviewing it.

for some courses with two sets of tees there are not any real differences between each set and in that case, whatever. playing one is like playing the other, plus or minus an extra 50 feet.

but the Selah courses are obviously crafted around the experience of the blue tees. and on top of that, they have a set of short tees that offer seriously difference looks and challenges on many holes. that the short layouts can get 4.0's and 4.5's from a "tough" reviewer is only proof of the merit of these courses when the "alternate" layout can garner these ratings.

and to me, that one of the things that really makes a 5.0 course.

 

[DavidSauls]

Point to consider #1. If Doofenshmirtz had been one of the first five people to review the Selah courses and had given them the same scores, and they had neven gone down their paths of five disc perfection for as long as they did, would his actions have been considered "lowballing" then?

Point to consider #2. Had that happened, would some of the reviewers that followed him been more comfortable with giving 4's or 4.5's themselves, instead of the groupthink mentality 5's that they gave, since that perfection had already been tarnished?

Pont to consider #3. If there was a similar two courses complex that was arguably as good as Selah, but didn't have the Top 10 list limelight that Selah does, as Doofenshmirtz gave those courses 4 and 4.5 ratings, would any of you crabbing about him rating Selah with those numbers even notice, much less give a damn?

I'm sorry folks, but when the 25th, 49th, or 82nd reviewer gives his opinion of a course, he should have the same right to make his case that all of people who preceded him did without having to cowtow to some cult of consensus that assumes the average from all of the preceding reviews are somehow gospel (because you know, there can't possibly be any rubber stamp homer 5's in that mess).

Doofenshmirtz did all future Selah reviewers a big favor.

Very good points.

It's interesting how often people take the attitude that "My ratings are honest, but other people's ratings must be agenda-driven because they're not the same as mine". Both on high and low ratings.

 

[NDABRUSH]

^^^this

they are well-written reviews that give an honest opinion of the layouts that he played. but i still think it is kinda bull$hit and not much different than not playing an entire course before reviewing it.

for some courses with two sets of tees there are not any real differences between each set and in that case, whatever. playing one is like playing the other, plus or minus an extra 50 feet.

but the Selah courses are obviously crafted around the experience of the blue tees. and on top of that, they have a set of short tees that offer seriously difference looks and challenges on many holes. that the short layouts can get 4.0's and 4.5's from a "tough" reviewer is only proof of the merit of these courses when the "alternate" layout can garner these ratings.

and to me, that one of the things that really makes a 5.0 cou
rse.

I wouldn't give his review/rating too much thought, he has only played a few courses compared to most of you trusted reviewers that have given lakeside a 5. One trusted reviewer with 1100 courses played gave lakeside a 5 and another with 750 played did also and I believe has it #3 in his top 20. The fact that he played the shorts and then says how easy it is should tell you something about his reasoning and thought process.

 

[PMantle]

Well playing devils advocate here the review was based solely on the short tees. Idk how much I would consider a review that played the short layout and then complained that the pars were too generous among other things. But this is an opinion site so oh well life goes on

I was there. We played shorts on Lakeside and longs on Creekside. I had a lot of influence on that because I have shoulder issues and did not want to have that many full power throws in one day. Just seemed like a good idea to choose them that way due to the character of each course. I don't review courses much. I don't enjoy it. OTOH, doof nailed those courses imho. The distances are just really odd. Really short short holes, and really long long holes. If I go back, I will push for playing some kind of hybrid layout with the decision on tees made on a hole by hole basis. I really do not enjoy long 4s and 5s. Ymmv.

Saying par is too generous is not saying the course is too easy. It's simply saying that par is too generous. Did you see what he shot? I suspect he has very few, if any, -5 scores at our home course that he plays twice a week or more. Shooting that score on his first round ever supports the statement. I know he had one eagle, but that may have been Creekside-can't remember. I also don't think the comment had anything to do with his view on the quality of the courses. Maybe he can clear that up.

 

[PMantle]

Oh, and on the negs he gets, there is a troll from another board that follows doof around simply to do this. I suspect he gets others to do it as well. I am surprised this is tolerated.

 

[sloppydisc]

I for one support doof. If only because he is called doof. That's enough for me.

 

[BraveThrower43]

I was there. We played shorts on Lakeside and longs on Creekside. I had a lot of influence on that because I have shoulder issues and did not want to have that many full power throws in one day. Just seemed like a good idea to choose them that way due to the character of each course. I don't review courses much. I don't enjoy it. OTOH, doof nailed those courses imho. The distances are just really odd. Really short short holes, and really long long holes. If I go back, I will push for playing some kind of hybrid layout with the decision on tees made on a hole by hole basis. I really do not enjoy long 4s and 5s. Ymmv.

Saying par is too generous is not saying the course is too easy. It's simply saying that par is too generous. Did you see what he shot? I suspect he has very few, if any, -5 scores at our home course that he plays twice a week or more. Shooting that score on his first round ever supports the statement. I know he had one eagle, but that may have been Creekside-can't remember. I also don't think the comment had anything to do with his view on the quality of the courses. Maybe he can clear that up.

Fair enough. I don't care one way or another that part just seemed a little odd to me.

I understand not liking par 5's and such but I love them myself. Of course my area is teeming with Par 4's and 5's that are well designed and fun to play imo but I know it's not for everyone.

 

[BraveThrower43]

I for one support doof. If only because he is called doof. That's enough for me.

I change my stance. I no longer support doof because ^he supports doof for being called doof.

 

[Mattallica]

I change my stance. I no longer support doof because ^he supports doof for being called doof.

Well I can't support that

 

[dreadlock86]

for the record, i also agree with everything that scarpfish said.
for the record, i also thumbed up these reviews.

i could care less what the numerical rating is that someone gives. the review itself gives a lot of useful information. i just happen to also think that his opinion is retarded in several instances.

 

[Qikly]

I for one was not a fan of Doofenshmirtz's reviews of the Selah courses, not because of the ratings so much as because of his comments. A lot of this of course comes down to personal opinion, and everyone is absolutely entitled to that, especially when they take as much time to thoroughly, clearly, and respectfully articulate that opinion as Doof. does. As a fellow Louisianan, I appreciate his regular reviews of the region's courses. He regularly makes valuable contributions to the site.

That said, what I found lacking most in his reviews was a failure to acknowledge the pervasive sophistication of Selah's par 4s and 5s (by the way, I totally agree that some of the pars are generous from the red tees; not from the blues, though). This is a huge part of what makes its golf special, and I think it's really apparent. Even if you have a preference for par 3 golf, or desire more par 3s, etc, I find it hard to accept that the reviews didn't even touch on one of the primary selling points of the course design, even if the reviewer didn't themselves overly enjoy that part. Again, to each his own, but this was one of the elements I strongly disagreed with. I've a lot of other quibbles, too; that's just one example.

As an aside: I like that he expressed a different opinion than my own. It makes for good discussion, because he expressed it thoughtfully. I happen to think that Lakeside is unbelievable. I haven't played a ton of courses, but I've played some great ones (Moraine, Whippin' Post) and some wonderful top 25ers that I thought were a bit overrated (Deer Lakes, Shawshank), and I found Lakeside to be head and shoulders above all of these. When you reach a certain level personal preference starts to play a big role in what falls where. Discussing it is part of the fun of the sport and this site.

 

[BraveThrower43]

I think the reason that the Par seems generous on the short course is that the short pads were not designed for an int or better player. Being a Red designation it would seem to me that the course was designed for players who do not throw a longer distance. For an Advanced player that layout might be considered full of tweener holes or too easy and that is because it was not designed for or assigned pars for an upper level player

 

[optidiscic]

that suspicious Pauley review of Idlewild still rubs me the wrong way

especially when the consoiracy guy in me suspects it was pauley from colorado review gouging

 

[reposado]

for the record, i also agree with everything that scarpfish said.
for the record, i also thumbed up these reviews.

i could care less what the numerical rating is that someone gives. the review itself gives a lot of useful information. i just happen to also think that his opinion is retarded in several instances.

The only time the number influences me is if it is does not match what is in the text.

 

[Hector Chain]

I think asking someone to play all the tees is a tough ask. I've played Maple Hill more than a dozen times and I've never played the golds. If I'm traveling I don't necessarily try to play all the tees. While the long tees at Lakeside are better than the short tees, I'm not sure that the essential character is lost.

My advice to people of my general skill level (850-900): play the longs at Lakeside and the shorts at Creekside. The long tees are still manageable at Lakeside and show off the superb design. I thought the long tees at Creekside were less fun and didn't add a ton other than distance.

 

[Qikly]

If I'm playing a course I know I won't visit regularly, I'll make a point of sizing up holes from the tees other than the ones I'm playing. It helps develop a round perspective for a review.

If I'm playing a course that changes significantly between tees, I'll try to note the tees that my comments are based on in the review.

 

[reposado]

I think asking someone to play all the tees is a tough ask. I've played Maple Hill more than a dozen times and I've never played the golds. If I'm traveling I don't necessarily try to play all the tees. While the long tees at Lakeside are better than the short tees, I'm not sure that the essential character is lost.

it would be a very tough ask, and i wouldnt want to ask it either. id much rather have a review of one set of tees than no review at all. all the layouts will be covered by someone.

yeah,the best review would come from some one who has played from all tees, but a review of set is definitely valuable

 

[dreadlock86]

If I'm playing a course I know I won't visit regularly, I'll make a point of sizing up holes from the tees other than the ones I'm playing. It helps develop a round perspective for a review.

If I'm playing a course that changes significantly between tees, I'll try to note the tees that my comments are based on in the review.

:thmbup:


but i wish more people would consider waiting on a review if you haven't played another set of tees that is significantly different. i'm guilty of this myself sometimes.

 

[Qikly]

but i wish more people would consider waiting on a review if you haven't played another set of tees that is significantly different. i'm guilty of this myself sometimes.

Or for other reasons, too. I think it's just important to recognize when you haven't gotten a solid sense of your opinion on a course. There are a few I've played where I came away uncertain the first time around, or with opinions that conflicted with people I respect, and I wanted until playing a second time before writing my review. Subsequent trips have always helped in those situations.

Linbrook in western PA is a case in point. The first time I played it I was really disappointed: it was super overgrown, and just something about the way it played rubbed me the wrong way. But my brother loves it to death and said that he'd never seen it that bad, so I postponed my review. Second time around it was well-groomed, and I saw it for what it was: an absolute gem with top tier potential. Some amazingly complex par 4s and 5s that are among the most unique holes I've ever seen. It's a personal favorite of mine, and a course that I hope is able to get expanded to 18 as planned and become more polished. If so, it could become an absolute knock out.

 

[PMantle]

I think the reason that the Par seems generous on the short course is that the short pads were not designed for an int or better player. Being a Red designation it would seem to me that the course was designed for players who do not throw a longer distance. For an Advanced player that layout might be considered full of tweener holes or too easy and that is because it was not designed for or assigned pars for an upper level player

I don't remember the numbers, but it's a pretty long course from the reds.