Rating 9-holers versus 18-holers

[Dave242]

That is actually probably a pretty good idea, Russ. But maybe the reason I am saying that is because that is how my list has turned out:

Discs Count
4.0 - 6
3.5 - 8
3.0 - 9
2.5 - 3
2.0 - 5
1.5 - 8
1.0 - 15
0.5 - 22
0.0 - 13

Certainly not a bell curve! But....I do not think it should be since it takes effort to be good and no real effort to be bad......that happens by sticking 9 baskets in field with natural tee pads all less than 200-250' feet away. And there are a lot of those in areas I have played!

 

[mashnut]

Yeah, especially the 9 holers around chicago, I'm sure that populates a pretty good chunk of the bottom of that list.

 

[360DiscGolfer]

For me, 9 holers have a lower ceiling because they inherently have less challenge and variety.

To me that really generalizes 9-hole courses. I'm sure we can agree that all courses can vary greatly in challenge and fun factor, even when in close proximity to each other. Take this new 9 hole in Oregon that was partially designed by Dave Feldberg. "This promises to be one of the hardest and most challenging 9 hole courses in Oregon, offering 5 water hazard holes." I cant find the article now but one of the other designer of the course said even he was intimidated by the challenge of the course. Granted this course is new and may one day be 18 holes, I still think 9 hole courses can stand their ground with the big boys.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3739

But yeah I've also played some pretty boring 8,9,12 and even 15 hole courses (all in my area :thmbdown

 

[Jukeshoe]

This is something I had been chewing on as well. I guess I've just come to the conclusion that with 9 holers I'll rate it on a 4 disc scale as opposed to the 5 disc scale. Where a 4 star 9 holer is equal to a 5 star 18 hole course. 9 hole courses are usually designed based on limitations. Land, Money, availability, etc... I've played some fantastic 9 hole courses, but they aren't anything like the 18 hole counterparts. So That's how I do it. I think we are all of the same mindset, if we see a 9 hole course with three stars, then we'll know that it's one that is worth checking out. Then again, this is just my opinion.

Hmmm, I see what you're getting at. But doesn't this make comparing a 9-holer and an 18-holer with the same rating difficult? Say I look at your reviews and you gave x course (9holes) a 1 rating and y course (18 holes) a 1 rating. Don't I then have to say, "Wait, Russ weighs these differently, so really the 9 holer is slightly higher rated than the 18 holer."

Does that make sense?

 

[sillybizz]

To me that really generalizes 9-hole courses. I'm sure we can agree that all courses can vary greatly in challenge and fun factor, even when in close proximity to each other. Take this new 9 hole in Oregon that was partially designed by Dave Feldberg. "This promises to be one of the hardest and most challenging 9 hole courses in Oregon, offering 5 water hazard holes." I cant find the article now but one of the other designer of the course said even he was intimidated by the challenge of the course. Granted this course is new and may one day be 18 holes, I still think 9 hole courses can stand their ground with the big boys.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3739

But yeah I've also played some pretty boring 8,9,12 and even 15 hole courses (all in my area :thmbdown

The course that Feldberg built is also a pole hole course which lowers it's rating. I give a half a disc higher rating for courses over 18 holes or for a piece of property with more than one course but I don't downgrade a course because it only has 9 or 12 or 15, etc.

 

[Posey Ching]

18 versus 27 isn't a good argument because 18 is the standard to which all things are compared. 27 holes is simply an 18 hole course with a bonus.

agreed. and a 12-hole course is a 9-hole course with a bonus.

Going even deeper...this discussion reminds me of Rooster Rock, a course near Portland in the scenic Columbia River Gorge. On one side of the park there is a 9-hole course that is moderately wooded but mostly open. And then on the other side of the park there is another 9-hole course that is very heavily wooded. For some reason, this site and the PDGA site spilt this up into 2 9-hole courses. Yes, the walk in between them kind of long, maybe 5-10 minutes, but it's under a 1-minute drive and it's in the same park!

I see Rooster Rock as an 18-hole course, and a very good one at that (people giving it a 2 disc or lower are high). People complain about the difficulty of the east 9, but that is what makes it so awesome, not to mention the scenery and serenity of it. So here's my vote to changing Rooster Rock to an 18-hole course!!

 

[El Oso Peligroso]

pssshhhh but you'd have to wait awhile before you could smoke any of that growing wacky tobaccy. the only pro with that course would be that your disc would have a more "sticky" grip after throwing it into the rough.

yeah, I threw my beast into the beaster.

 

[Posey Ching]

To me that really generalizes 9-hole courses. I'm sure we can agree that all courses can vary greatly in challenge and fun factor, even when in close proximity to each other. Take this new 9 hole in Oregon that was partially designed by Dave Feldberg. "This promises to be one of the hardest and most challenging 9 hole courses in Oregon, offering 5 water hazard holes." I cant find the article now but one of the other designer of the course said even he was intimidated by the challenge of the course. Granted this course is new and may one day be 18 holes, I still think 9 hole courses can stand their ground with the big boys.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=3739

But yeah I've also played some pretty boring 8,9,12 and even 15 hole courses (all in my area :thmbdown

Thanks for the heads up man! I'm in the Beaverton area too and I didn't know about that new 9-holer.

And I know the boring small courses you're referring to. The 8-holer is Greenway. The 9-holer could be Orchard and others. The 12 is probably Lunchtime. And the 15 is probably Champoeg or whatever it is.

The course that has really caught my eye is just west of Beaverton at Horning's. I recently played the Meadow Ridge course for the first time at HH and that MIGHT be the best in Oregon...might take you almost 3 hours or more to play it though and it's EXTREMELY difficult...but wow.

 

[Posey Ching]

The course that Feldberg built is also a pole hole course which lowers it's rating. I give a half a disc higher rating for courses over 18 holes or for a piece of property with more than one course but I don't downgrade a course because it only has 9 or 12 or 15, etc.

Oh well shoot, I don't even want to play a pole hole course.

 

[Danger]

Rabbit Flats

9 tees, 27 baskets. Listed as 18, lol.
Its pretty awesome, I gave it a 3.5, but after reading this thread, I think it is HIGHLY re-playable and almost deserves a 4 for what it is....best use of land possible, 27 disCatchers, great flat tee pads, different challenges on each holes....

discuss and over analyze.

 

[RussMB]

Hmmm, I see what you're getting at. But doesn't this make comparing a 9-holer and an 18-holer with the same rating difficult? Say I look at your reviews and you gave x course (9holes) a 1 rating and y course (18 holes) a 1 rating. Don't I then have to say, "Wait, Russ weighs these differently, so really the 9 holer is slightly higher rated than the 18 holer."

Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes does make sense. But, I think you may be putting to much into it. How often do you compare an 18 hole course to a 9 hole course? Generally, People will look to find the 18 hole courses nearby, and the 9 hole courses become a second thought. We already separate them, before we've even considered them. So, there are two trains of thought. If you don't believe me, think about it, when was the last time you chose a 9 hole course over a 18 hole course? If so, Why? Time constraints, location, etc
ergo the second thought.

Also, 9 hole courses already start with a bad stigma of being a "Lesser than course".

Players generally look at the 18 hole courses and say "Give me a reason why I shouldn't play here"
A person looks at a 9 hole course and says "Give me a reason why I should play here"
This is why I don't think people compare 9 hole courses to 18 hole courses.

again... this is just my opinion.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Yes, that makes does make sense. But, I think you may be putting to much into it. How often do you compare an 18 hole course to a 9 hole course? Generally, People will look to find the 18 hole courses nearby, and the 9 hole courses become a second thought. We already separate them, before we've even considered them. So, there are two trains of thought. If you don't believe me, think about it, when was the last time you chose a 9 hole course over a 18 hole course? If so, Why? Time constraints, location, etc
ergo the second thought.

Also, 9 hole courses already start with a bad stigma of being a "Lesser than course".

Players generally look at the 18 hole courses and say "Give me a reason why I shouldn't play here"
A person looks at a 9 hole course and says "Give me a reason why I should play here"
This is why I don't think people compare 9 hole courses to 18 hole courses.

again... this is just my opinion.

No, no, everything you say makes sense. I just might be one of the few people who have a fairly decent 9-holer nearby, without any 18 holers inside of a 25-30 minutes drive. I've only ever played one 9-holer (again, a fairly decent one), so maybe I just haven't seen how much most 9-holers suck.

 

[discpicable]

Players generally look at the 18 hole courses and say "Give me a reason why I shouldn't play here"
A person looks at a 9 hole course and says "Give me a reason why I should play here"

This is a good point.

 

[RussMB]

No, no, everything you say makes sense. I just might be one of the few people who have a fairly decent 9-holer nearby, without any 18 holers inside of a 25-30 minutes drive. I've only ever played one 9-holer (again, a fairly decent one), so maybe I just haven't seen how much most 9-holers suck.

Check out my local course! lol You'll feel better about yours!


Click on the East Bay course link in my signature, I don't feel like making a link! lol

 

[Jukeshoe]

Check out my local course! lol You'll feel better about yours!


Click on the East Bay course link in my signature, I don't feel like making a link! lol

Jeez! I thought putting up with the random patch of poison ivy was bad...

Alligators?!

 

[bikinjack]

Dave, you the man! Great thread! I've been thinking about this for a while, at least since I wrote my review of Beatty's Ford Park. I really enjoyed playing this course, and the challenges of scoring well there were great. I only gave it a 2.5 disc rating, but I want to grade it higher. It was a fun course. The problem was, it was short, a classic just throw a putter, and maybe a mid, kind of course, and only 9 holes. But for what it is, I cannot imagine a better course of its type.

Players generally look at the 18 hole courses and say "Give me a reason why I shouldn't play here"
A person looks at a 9 hole course and says "Give me a reason why I should play here"

Great point, Russ.

 

[srm_520]

agreed. and a 12-hole course is a 9-hole course with a bonus.

Going even deeper...this discussion reminds me of Rooster Rock, a course near Portland in the scenic Columbia River Gorge. On one side of the park there is a 9-hole course that is moderately wooded but mostly open. And then on the other side of the park there is another 9-hole course that is very heavily wooded. For some reason, this site and the PDGA site spilt this up into 2 9-hole courses. Yes, the walk in between them kind of long, maybe 5-10 minutes, but it's under a 1-minute drive and it's in the same park!

I see Rooster Rock as an 18-hole course, and a very good one at that (people giving it a 2 disc or lower are high). People complain about the difficulty of the east 9, but that is what makes it so awesome, not to mention the scenery and serenity of it. So here's my vote to changing Rooster Rock to an 18-hole course!!

Zilker Park in Austin suffers from the same thing, and the walk is only across the street. You'll see that it's finally marked as 18 holes on the site, but look at the maps and it will show a north and south layout.

 

[RussMB]

Jeez! I thought putting up with the random patch of poison ivy was bad...

Alligators?!

Advantage of the being in the south: Play all year round
Disadvantage: You'll want to think twice about going after a disc in the pond. lol

That is the closest free course to me, and I live 23 miles away from it. The closest is a pay to play, that is alright but it costs 7$ for 9 and 10$ for 2 rounds. Plus you have to share the course with ball golfers.

There is a third 9 holer, but it's 45 miles away. It's decent, but it's still very small. So it's a matter of "which one do I want to deal with" It's great you have a good 9 hole course. Which one? I'll look it up.

I actually enjoy playing the 9 hole courses, because some can have a real high "Fun Factor" for me. That is why I rate it from the perspective of: I know you have may have written this course off because it's 9 holes, but here is why you could enjoy this course. I'll usually include: Not worth the drive, I wouldn't drive outta my way, but if I'm nearby I'd stop, or If you can route your trip out accordingly, this course is worth the stop.

Now, in the case of My lovely 9 holer. Ours was a test course for the county. They wanted to see how well it would be received. Well, it has paid off, because that county is wanting to install more courses! :thmbup: Which is why I stated that in my review, because the more people that were seen playing, the more potential the county saw. I really tried to find a nice way to say, " This course isn't that great, but good things can come from playing here!" When Prerube came here to play, it was hard for me to not keep myself from qualifying the course! LOL

 

[Jukeshoe]

Advantage of the being in the south: Play all year round
Disadvantage: You'll want to think twice about going after a disc in the pond. lol

That is the closest free course to me, and I live 23 miles away from it. The closest is a pay to play, that is alright but it costs 7$ for 9 and 10$ for 2 rounds. Plus you have to share the course with ball golfers.

There is a third 9 holer, but it's 45 miles away. It's decent, but it's still very small. So it's a matter of "which one do I want to deal with" It's great you have a good 9 hole course. Which one? I'll look it up.

I actually enjoy playing the 9 hole courses, because some can have a real high "Fun Factor" for me. That is why I rate it from the perspective of: I know you have may have written this course off because it's 9 holes, but here is why you could enjoy this course. I'll usually include: Not worth the drive, I wouldn't drive outta my way, but if I'm nearby I'd stop, or If you can route your trip out accordingly, this course is worth the stop.

Now, in the case of My lovely 9 holer. Ours was a test course for the county. They wanted to see how well it would be received. Well, it has paid off, because that county is wanting to install more courses! :thmbup: Which is why I stated that in my review, because the more people that were seen playing, the more potential the county saw. I really tried to find a nice way to say, " This course isn't that great, but good things can come from playing here!" When Prerube came here to play, it was hard for me to not keep myself from qualifying the course! LOL

The county testing thing is what my home 9-holer is. They also liked it and are putting in a full 18 next year. Budget is all set up for it and everything.

My home course is Creek Ridge in Michigan City, In. It's pretty good, all things considered. We're upgrading from natural to rubber tee mats in May, and a lot of the minor complaints are being fixed up by a few of us locals and the park department.

It sucks that you've got so few courses nearby.

 

[etaine]

I dont really see why a 9 hole cant be rated exactly the same as an 18 hole. I don't base my reviews on how many holes there are. It could be a 4 hole course and if it met all the same qualifications to be a decent course then it would get the same rating.
It is fun? Is it challenging? is it laid out well? is it well kept? etc.. The standards for judging are the same in my book.