Ran Off The Course By Mosquito's?

[Stardoggy]

Sounds like the guy that gave Mt Airy a 3 because it was too hard...

I gave Airy a 3.5....

 

[tbird888]

So what course was it?

 

[ScottishDiscman]

MY LIFE!

 

[reposado]

No kidding. Generally speaking there isn't a whole lot that can be done about them either, at least from the course management perspective.


It's handy to know if a course is particularly buggy in terms of preparing to play it, but I don't see where it should be a big con in a review. Cons, IMO, are typically things that can at least theoretically be fixed...lack of signs, broken targets, trash everywhere, unsafe design, etc.

There are lots of cons that can't be done much about. Uninteresting terrain. Restrictions on cutting. But we aren't reviewing the course managers. We are reviewing courses. Providing players with an expectation of their experience on the course.

To me, bugs go right in the same category as bad weather. If you're there on the wrong day, you just have to deal with it, but it isn't the course's fault.

Disagree. Weather isn't unique to the course and you should be able to tell if it's raining or not before you go.

Conditions of the course are very much part of the experience you have playing.

It's not about blame. If a course is unplayable 10% of the time and you don't which times it will be so, well then imo 10% of the reviews should reflect the bad conditions, 90% of the reviews should refelect good conditions and the average she paint an accurate picture of how the course plays.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I gave Airy a 3.5....

While I disagree with your rating at least you gave reasons other than it being too hard like this guy did:

Other Thoughts: I rated this course lower than most, because of the heavy traffic and outrageous difficulty. Coming here without doubles, an amateur player will expect to shoot well over and experience a major level of frustration. I am normally not a player to get angry on the course, but this one is just relentless between the length and tree coverage. Rolling terrain and heavy wooded holes provide a very well made professional level course. I am an established player in my area, but this course KICKED MY ASS. WIll not be returning here without a partner.

This course is not outrageously difficult. Is it hard, yes. You go to a course with a pro shop in the middle of a city, of course its gonna be well played...

 

[DavidSauls]

Isn't there a rule about having to at least played the whole course in order to write a review?

This is a much bigger problem than complaining about the mosquitos themselves.

 

[Stardoggy]

LoL. Even in the longs, I didn't find Airy to be a buttkicker by any stretch.

 

[threevok]

Sounds like the guy that gave Mt Airy a 3 because it was too hard...

Probably an 878 player. Around that level most think they're better than the are.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Probably an 878 player. Around that level most think they're better than the are.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

Same guy also gave Harbin Park, a boring wide open snooze fest a 4.5....

 

[RFrance]

So what course was it?

Picnic Island, Tampa.

 

[joecoin]

Good to know. Then I'm sure you won't mind when someone nitpicks the grammar in your subject heading.

... If the course in question were transported to an area with zero mosquitos, say Arizona, shouldn't the course then be reviewed and rated better, with all things being equal besides the mosquitos?

Location, bugs, weather, among many other things, should all go into a review and rating.

Don't mean to nitpick, but:

4 deaths in Arizona prompt mosquito concerns


http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...mosquito-prevention-after-outbreaks/32064249/

 

[thrembo]

Good to know. Then I'm sure you won't mind when someone nitpicks the grammar in your subject heading.

As for the review in question, I probably wouldn't rate and review a course I hadn't played at least one complete round on. However, I disagree with the folks who think a bothersome presence of mosquitos should be ignored when writing a review of a course. If the course in question were transported to an area with zero mosquitos, say Arizona, shouldn't the course then be reviewed and rated better, with all things being equal besides the mosquitos?

Location, bugs, weather, among many other things, should all go into a review and rating.

Nope. Nitpick away. Grammer nazis don't bother me.

 

[ThrowBot]

Most courses [that I've played] have some sort of mosquito or tick concern. It's an outdoor sport and that does have some negative aspects, but if that honestly ruins your round then I'd say it's your own fault for lack of preparation. I wouldn't blame a course if I got sunburned there.

I'll mention bugs in a review, but just as a heads up to pack some insect repellent.

It would have to be a reaaaaally severe situation to affect a course rating in my book...maybe if the clouds of mosquitoes were so thick that it affected the flight of my disc.

 

[Bamm]

I am "bad" allergic to poison oak. If a course has it significant enough for it to be an issue to someone, I'd like to know it. Doesn't need to effect the rating of the course but I would greatly appreciate the info...........

 

[corin_brown]

Don't mean to nitpick, but:

4 deaths in Arizona prompt mosquito concerns


http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...mosquito-prevention-after-outbreaks/32064249/

Lol, my bad. I had no idea the mosquito problem was worse in the desert SW than it was in Florida.

 

[corin_brown]

... Grammer...

Lol touché. Nicely done. My compliments.:clap::clap::clap:

 

[reposado]

Lol, my bad. I had no idea the mosquito problem was worse in the desert SW than it was in Florida.

Most of Florida isn't that bad. Or rather, anyplace people live has been so thoroughly strayed that you never see any. NC and New England are far worse.

 

[roggenb3]

It would have to be a reaaaaally severe situation to affect a course rating in my book...maybe if the clouds of mosquitoes were so thick that it affected the flight of my disc.

Couple years ago the 4 wooded holes at cap springs were damn near this bad. You'd set down your bag and in seconds there were literally hundreds of mosquitoes on it. You couldn't stop moving for a second, no matter how thick the layer of Deet on your clothes was. Most people just skipped those holes, those that didn't ran them.

When its that bad, I would count it as a con for sure.

 

[ThrowBot]

Couple years ago the 4 wooded holes at cap springs were damn near this bad. You'd set down your bag and in seconds there were literally hundreds of mosquitoes on it. You couldn't stop moving for a second, no matter how thick the layer of Deet on your clothes was. Most people just skipped those holes, those that didn't ran them.

When its that bad, I would count it as a con for sure.

Yowzers, that sounds crazy. I hope to never play in conditions like that.

I guess in those extreme cases it could affect a course rating, especially if it's like that all the time (or at least on a regular basis).

 

[gdub58]

Interesting thread. While I agree overall that someone who didn't even play half the course has no business submitting a review, the discussion prompts a few questions:

- Do you always ignore conditional variables in your rating? What if it's something like a daily infestation of snakes instead of seasonal mosquitos? I don't write enough reviews to have run into something like this, so I'm curious if/how others factor this in.

- We know environmental variables matter when it comes to ratings - some highly rated courses are rewarded for factors other than course design. How does this dimension factor in for you? Could a 3.5 disc course become a 5.0 if they had your ideal amenities (and I'd rather not know what those are for some on here...)

I haven't written a review in a long time, but I don't think I'd bump a rating up by more than 0.5 based on the experience/atmosphere/amenities, but I have deducted more than that for environmental (safety) issues. I would agree that temporary issues (bugs, wet grounds, not mowed, etc.) should be listed on either course conditions or "Other thoughts" and not impact the rating.

The factor I have the most trouble with is the course's potential. I have played several courses that would likely be rated much higher if they were allowed to and could afford to remove trees, reshape/define hazards, and so forth. I know I should rate a course for what it is, but it's sometimes hard to ding someone who had a good vision but for whatever reason couldn't totally execute it.