My 5 Star Courses

[Mando]

2% of my total courses played. That's what I've settled on as my required number of 5 stars-- otherwise I just don't consider anything 5 star because "nothing's perfect"

If you don't consider anything a 5 star, why bother making a list ?

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

If you don't consider anything a 5 star, why bother making a list ?

Or, by UDisc logic, if every course is a 5 star course, why bother having ratings?

 

[Mando]

Or, by UDisc logic, if every course is a 5 star course, why bother having ratings?

There's actually only 1.5% of the courses within a 5,000 mile radius that round up to a 5 on Udisc...

 

[wolfhaley]

I've never given out a 5 before. I'm stingy I guess :\

 

[Steve West]

There's actually only 1.5% of the courses within a 5,000 mile radius that round up to a 5 on Udisc...

So OP is more generous than Udisc?

 

[adlacro]

I've been pretty stingy with my 5's as well.

Back in the day, I used to review everything, even if it wasn't quite finished. Boy did I get (expletive) on for calling Iron Hill "Iron Hell" a month after it was in the ground (although in fairness I drove over two hours to go play it). I did go back a few years later and re-reviewed it, upping it to a 4.

After that I decided to wait until I played every course at least twice before reviewing it. I have a few courses that I need to do reviews for here in south Florida, but my 5's are Maple Hill, Tyler State (the old 27 hole layout; I am hoping to play the new 36 this year); Brakewell (Warwick town Park) (I shouldn't have reviewed that one; it was a one time appearance), and Nockamixon (more than likely RIP). No course I have yet to review is 5 worthy.

 

[Mando]

I've never given out a 5 before. I'm stingy I guess :\

Understandable, if you follow TimG's instruction (nothing could be improved), but by lumping 5's and 4.5's together, you are not using the full 0-5 scale.

 

[wolfhaley]

Understandable, if you follow TimG's instruction (nothing could be improved), but by lumping 5's and 4.5's together, you are not using the full 0-5 scale.

True, but for me it's more that a 5 is "The best of the best". I've got a long way to go to be able to make that claim. I've got a lot of the "best" courses played, but mostly in my region. I feel like I'm pretty good at stating why I didn't give out a perfect 5 rating. At least in my recent reviews. I'd say the closest ones to getting a 5 from me would be Harmony Bends, Idlewild and Wilderness.

Other than no 5, I've used the whole scale though. I think I've only given out one 0 rating. I think.

 

[cox3]

1-23 on my list are really the courses that I thought were the best of the best from the first time I laid eyes on them until now, no questions asked. 24-31 are a very easy "next group" for me but I could easily call them 4.5 if I wanted to reduce my 5 star percentage from 2% to 1.5%. The #32 spot was the only one that I really deliberated on a lot. Lemon Lake Gold is nice but it is definitely in a 3rd tier, in my opinion. These were the other courses that I gave real consideration to placing in that 32nd spot, which round out my top 40:

Keeley Park (McLeansville, North Carolina)
Warwick Park (Warwick, New York)
IDGC - Jim Warner Memorial (Appling, Georgia)
Trey Texas Ranch - Texas Twist (Mount Vernon, Texas)
Hobbs Farm Park (Carrollton, Georgia)
New London Technology Park (Forest, Virginia)
Blue Ribbon Pines (East Bethel, Minnesota)
The Canyons DGC @ Dellwood Park (Lockport, Illinois)

I would also add that the original Highbridge Gold would easily not just be a 5 star but would be in the top 10. And I imagine that once it's back to a well redesigned and organized 18 hole layout it will easily reclaim that positioning. The original front 9 is in the discussion for best 9 anywhere. When I played it, most of the original back 9 had become not great which is also why it was removed shortly thereafter.

 

[jksdg]

If one were to rank courses by where they fit in to all others they played (assuming a reasonable sample size) what should the distribution be?

Sounds like
90 percentile is a 5
80 percntile is 4.5.............isn't what people want. Also no one gives courses a 0.

Would top 5% get a 5?
Next 10% get a 4.5
Next 12.5% get a 4
Next 12.5% get a 3.5
Next 12.5% get a 3
Next 12.5% get a 2.5
Next 10% get a 2
Next 10% get a 1.5
Next 10% get a 1.0
Last 5% get a 0.5?????

 

[Countchunkula]

^When you've played a 500+ courses, like some of the people in this thread have, you might need to use % breaks like that.

At my sub 200 courses played and about 50 reviewed, I'll usually have an idea for a rating once I've played a course. Then I'll compare that number to the group of courses that I've previously given that rating too and decide if it fits in the same tier. Tiers have shifted a couple of times as I've played more courses. For now, this works, but if I'm lucky enough to bag another 200 I'll need a spreadsheet to keep things straight.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

If one were to rank courses by where they fit in to all others they played (assuming a reasonable sample size) what should the distribution be?

Sounds like
90 percentile is a 5
80 percntile is 4.5.............isn't what people want. Also no one gives courses a 0.

Would top 5% get a 5?
Next 10% get a 4.5
Next 12.5% get a 4
Next 12.5% get a 3.5
Next 12.5% get a 3
Next 12.5% get a 2.5
Next 10% get a 2
Next 10% get a 1.5
Next 10% get a 1.0
Last 5% get a 0.5?????

No way 5% of the courses in existence should be 5.0's. Don't try to force fit it into a formula.

Tim describes the ratings as follows
5.0 = Best of the best
4.5 = Phenomenal
4.0 = Excellent
3.5 = Very good
3.0 = Good
2.5 = Decent/Typical
2.0 = Reasonable
1.5 = Passable
1.0 = Poor
0.5 = Bad
0.0 = Abysmal

The words are pretty self explanatory.

 

[wolfhaley]

No way 5% of the courses in existence should be 5.0's. Don't try to force fit it into a formula.

Tim describes the ratings as follows
5.0 = Best of the best
4.5 = Phenomenal
4.0 = Excellent
3.5 = Very good
3.0 = Good
2.5 = Decent/Typical
2.0 = Reasonable
1.5 = Passable
1.0 = Poor
0.5 = Bad
0.0 = Abysmal

The words are pretty self explanatory.

I agree to an extent. I'm probably the only diamond level reviewer to not give out a 5. I started doing reviews years before I was ever on these boards, so I never seen or read through the (overly) numerous top ranked this, review criteria that, etc. threads. I adhered to the descriptions attached to the number value you'd rate a course. Best of the best? Or best of the phenomenal? Best is a very loose term. Used twice in the same criteria. The same could be said for reasonable (2) and passable (1.5). Who the hell knows. :|

I'm going to keep doing reviews on here the same way I have been. I enjoy doing it actually, and if it helps a few people I did my job. The reviews are what matter. Not the ratings.