Movement in top 10

[mrclc]

Yeah, but you have to do this:



For a couple months a year, regardless of the level of rain. Lots of low lying areas there, though they do the best job they can keeping it playable.

I am not advocating that RR should be below a 5 for this - I absolutely think it's a 5 - just pointing out the inconsistency in saying that soupy fairways for a couple months = <5, but RR is a "permanent 5".

My issue isn't with "a couple months" -- my issue is with holding water to the extreme both inside and outside the spring months, something I have heard repeatedly about Harmony Bends. I expect to play in wet conditions in spring. I don't expect to play in ankle to calf deep water the day after it rains. In my mind, that level of water retention is a significant detraction from a "best of the best" experience.

Also, my use of "permanent" refers to the fact that it's a permanent course -- my favorite course of all time is the Kensington Toboggan temp course.

 

[Jabumbo]

I just played Harmony Bends last week and it's definitely pretty worthy of its rating. However, I would agree that the potential (it was nice while I was there) for wet and/or muddy conditions gives me pause for top dog status. I would like to think that the bad ratings due to water issues will balance out with those who give it a rating that is probably higher that it should be over time.


The idea of seeing a timeline of past #1's would be pretty awesome. I don't know if that's something that could be done easily or not. Seems like you'd need some sort of cached version of the site from each week and pull the data manually that way.

 

[tbird888]

This pathetic policing of reviews (and Tim's random way of allowing new courses vs redesigns vs "not popular enough for me to care") is why I don't review. How I long for the days of dgdave being proud to give his opinion in spite of the thumbs down. Don't like someone's opinion? Thumb it down and move on. Stop trying to "protect" a list that really has zero bearing on your lives (I feel really sorry for those of you that think they know what's right and wrong when it comes to reviews). At this point, I feel like the squeakiest of wheels should not be allowed to write reviews or thumb others up or down. If the "worst" reviewers can be silenced, the most vocal critics should be too.

 

[blazerico]

sure Harmony Bends is the new #1 and disc golf is life, but I still don't want to go to central Missouri

 

[armiller]

why do you think {some top notch course} is not top 10?

Cuz some random reviewer decided they didn't like it, and dropping a couple hundredths of a point is enough to change things with all the highly rated courses out there.

Selah Lakeside just got its lowest rating - 3.5. Reviewer copy & pasted the same generic review for both Lakeside and Creekside. Reviews would have a lot more merit if they were fine tuned to include specifics about both courses.

They were both bad reviews, especially because there was so little explanation behind the reviews. He had some kind of bone to pick with the courses. My take is that the guy doesn't like flat courses and he doesn't like water hazards. I guess that's enough to explain why someone wouldn't like the Selah duo. I still can't figure out how he manages to think that Creekside and Lakeside are so similar though. It makes me wonder if he even played them...

This pathetic policing of reviews (and Tim's random way of allowing new courses vs redesigns vs "not popular enough for me to care") is why I don't review. How I long for the days of dgdave being proud to give his opinion in spite of the thumbs down. Don't like someone's opinion? Thumb it down and move on. Stop trying to "protect" a list that really has zero bearing on your lives (I feel really sorry for those of you that think they know what's right and wrong when it comes to reviews). At this point, I feel like the squeakiest of wheels should not be allowed to write reviews or thumb others up or down. If the "worst" reviewers can be silenced, the most vocal critics should be too.

Maybe the real solution is to get rid of a "Top 10" list? Like I said, the two new Selah reviews are poor. But the reviews should (and will) stand as is. Isn't that 0.5 Maple Hill review still up, too? Harmony Bends won't remain unscathed either, and if the drainage issues are that bad, then that in itself will result in some lower reviews down the road. I just played a course that I rated pretty high after one play, and I noticed others had rated it lower due to mud on tees and other drainage issues. That didn't make me rate it lower, but obviously those lower numbers dropped the average...

 

[New013]

If a high rated course doesn't have a few haters I don't trust it completely.

It's either to new and hasn't been at the top long enough to anger someone or it's not difficult enough to bruise egos.

 

[NDABRUSH]

After playing Selah Lakeside, the mashnut said that it was his 3rd favorite course. That's out of 800 plus played. So the lack of elevation must have been made up for with some other aspects. Cuz mashnut, Bj and others have played enough different states that have plenty of elevation. It comes down to "Who do you trust?". I could have written those last 2 reviews on the selah courses and i haven't played them. If they are that over rated, then you should be able to describe the courses in detail and not have to copy and paste one of the reviews. Plus, this was the 1st reviewer that said that the courses were identical twins, so to speak.

 

[ScottyLove]

sure Harmony Bends is the new #1 and disc golf is life, but I still don't want to go to central Missouri

Oh but you should! HB is the new darling, but there are some VERY nice courses in the area. I like Indian Hills in Columbia as well and the nearby Jefferson City club manages 3 amazing courses in Joseph C. Miller, The Dam Course, and the brand new offering in Holts Summit which is quickly becoming the local favorite.

I think you'd enjoy yourself no matter that you're in the middle of Missouri.

 

[armiller]

Oh but you should! HB is the new darling, but there are some VERY nice courses in the area. I like Indian Hills in Columbia as well and the nearby Jefferson City club manages 3 amazing courses in Joseph C. Miller, The Dam Course, and the brand new offering in Holts Summit which is quickly becoming the local favorite.

I think you'd enjoy yourself no matter that you're in the middle of Missouri.

A little farther, but don't forget Branson Trails.

 

[PMantle]

Had I reviewed the Selah courses after my first visit, I would have had Lakeside clearly better than Creekside. After having played them multiple times, on three/four(can't remember now) different trips, I think I like Creekside better. The only thing making it not so clear is the absolutely terrible finishing hole.

 

[PoorPutter]

This is meant to be funny (not a complaint or statement or whatever), given the 3.5 rating for Selah......I noticed a 3.5 review on the front page for "Interstate Battery" in Des Moines. It appears to be 9 holes, no obstacles, tiny tee pads, no signs, all holes under 300 (3 under 200), crossing fairways, in the front lawn of an industrial building......and not just the most recent review, but 5 of its 11 reviews are 3.5!

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=5669&mode=hi

Had I reviewed the Selah courses after my first visit, I would have had Lakeside clearly better than Creekside. After having played them multiple times, on three/four(can't remember now) different trips, I think I like Creekside better. The only thing making it not so clear is the absolutely terrible finishing hole.

Get thee to the Selah thread and let's debate it!

 

[PMantle]

Get thee to the Selah thread and let's debate it!

Oh, don't get me started on that place. Look, I obviously enjoy it enough to travel there every year and spend money on lodging, food, beer, carts, etc, but that doesn't mean I don't have complaints about the place.

 

[Lazerface]

Have to disagree. If you are telling someone that their opinion is wrong, that is the height of arrogance. An opinion, by definition, is not necessarily based on fact.

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/Submit
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
You telling someone their opinion is wrong would be like you telling someone you like Innova discs more than Prodigy and them telling you that you are wrong.

I think you missed a very important part of the definition "not necessarily". I agree that knocking an opinion on something 100% subjective is silly like the example you provided.

However, when their "opinion" formed on a basis that is counter to the FACTS or REALITY, which is very much part of the human condition I find it pretty important they are criticized and told they are wrong. I'm sure you can think of a lot of "opinions" that fit this description.

I think this comment was in the context of a course review which on the surface falls in that 100% subjective category, but the poster was referring to the reviewer not understanding the concept of "risk/reward". I don't know the course, the review, or exactly what the posters beef was. There is certainly some subjectivity in the concept of risk/reward, or at least what constitutes "good" risk/reward. But it very well may be that someone simply does not understand the concept at all, and therefore forms an "opinion" that is simply "wrong" by definition. I'm not arguing specifics in this case. I'm just saying that there are certainly instances in which it is perfectly reasonable and arguably prudent, to tell someone there opinion is wrong, specifically when it is grounded by things that are not factual or supported by evidence.

If you are redefining opinion from the definition you provided...

....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

to

....a view or judgment formed about something that can only be judged subjectively and can in no way be disputed with facts or knowledge.


Then I agree with you.

 

[Lazerface]

I wanted to add that the idea of policing reviews or eliminating them is probably a bad idea in general. Others have made good points on that and moved me away from that point in the past. My criticism was of the general view that an opinion cannot be wrong.

 

[jtreadwell]

I wanted to add that the idea of policing reviews or eliminating them is probably a bad idea in general. Others have made good points on that and moved me away from that point in the past. My criticism was of the general view that an opinion cannot be wrong.

An opinion sure can be stupid though

 

[ru4por]

I think you missed a very important part of the definition "not necessarily". I agree that knocking an opinion on something 100% subjective is silly like the example you provided.

However, when their "opinion" formed on a basis that is counter to the FACTS or REALITY, which is very much part of the human condition I find it pretty important they are criticized and told they are wrong. I'm sure you can think of a lot of "opinions" that fit this description.

I think this comment was in the context of a course review which on the surface falls in that 100% subjective category, but the poster was referring to the reviewer not understanding the concept of "risk/reward". I don't know the course, the review, or exactly what the posters beef was. There is certainly some subjectivity in the concept of risk/reward, or at least what constitutes "good" risk/reward. But it very well may be that someone simply does not understand the concept at all, and therefore forms an "opinion" that is simply "wrong" by definition. I'm not arguing specifics in this case. I'm just saying that there are certainly instances in which it is perfectly reasonable and arguably prudent, to tell someone there opinion is wrong, specifically when it is grounded by things that are not factual or supported by evidence.

If you are redefining opinion from the definition you provided...

....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

to

....a view or judgment formed about something that can only be judged subjectively and can in no way be disputed with facts or knowledge.


Then I agree with you.

Lol, they are YOUR facts or reality. I reserve the right to determine what reality is........all on my own.

 

[Darkgreen]

Lol, they are YOUR facts or reality. I reserve the right to determine what reality is........all on my own.

Ya, and that is a problem. For instance, and let me remove ourselves from disc golf for a moment for some perspective. You could say you don't like vanilla ice cream, you could say that it is bad, and no one should argue with you seriously. However, if you were to say that a bowl of solid state ice cream in front of you was 110 degrees fahrenheit then people would and should disagree with you seriously. We could measure the temperature of that ice cream and it would be objective and it would be a fact. It wouldn't be your fact or my fact or anyone's fact, it would just be a fact.

 

[Lazerface]

Ya, and that is a problem. For instance, and let me remove ourselves from disc golf for a moment for some perspective. You could say you don't like vanilla ice cream, you could say that it is bad, and no one should argue with you seriously. However, if you were to say that a bowl of solid state ice cream in front of you was 110 degrees fahrenheit then people would and should disagree with you seriously. We could measure the temperature of that ice cream and it would be objective and it would be a fact. It wouldn't be your fact or my fact or anyone's fact, it would just be a fact.

Crazy that this is so hard to understand. I thought my post was pretty straight forward.

 

[ru4por]

Ya, and that is a problem. For instance, and let me remove ourselves from disc golf for a moment for some perspective. You could say you don't like vanilla ice cream, you could say that it is bad, and no one should argue with you seriously. However, if you were to say that a bowl of solid state ice cream in front of you was 110 degrees fahrenheit then people would and should disagree with you seriously. We could measure the temperature of that ice cream and it would be objective and it would be a fact. It wouldn't be your fact or my fact or anyone's fact, it would just be a fact.

Yeah, I guess I wasn't trying to argue facts as philosophy. Other than perhaps temperature is a man made up concept, to understand the idea of a consistent state of hot or cold. And I could say that the temp was different via a different scale. Also, reality and fact are a couple different concepts. I digress..........and am being factious.

But, that really wasn't the presentation given by Lazer.

 

[Lazerface]

Yeah, I guess I wasn't trying to present facts as philosophy. But, that wasn't the presentation given by Lazer.

Pretty sure it was exactly what I was presenting. But I'm not a very concise guy.