Rating 9-holers versus 18-holers

[Jukeshoe]

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.

That is definitely a valid opinion. As long as you're consistant, I think you're fine with however you decide to rate courses. Dave242, the OP, has a very unique style (though no less valid than yours or mine) that brought up the discussion. I'm not sure if it's a topic that's been covered in this forum before.

 

[BrotherDave]

I see each course as a unique snowflake. Ugly snowflakes get rated poorly and pretty snowflakes get rated high, regardless of size.

 

[Jukeshoe]

I see each course as a unique snowflake. Ugly snowflakes get rated poorly and pretty snowflakes get rated high, regardless of size.

Very poetic BroDave.

I think I'm going to have to sleep on this. I feel as though I'm leaning more towards the "9-holers potentially able to be rated as 5's" vs. the "automatically knock a 9 hole course down a disc (or half-disc or whatever) for being only 9 holes."

 

[optidiscic]

I struggle with this as well. More holes usually means more fun and I'm more apt to go out of my way for 27 rated a 3.5 than 18 at 4. Gets tricky with niners though as usually we (me included) penalize them for being half a course I usually top out at 3.5 for the best nines. I'd rather they capped at 4 discs or had their own category in searches. It would take the imperfect math out. Basically I try to think like this. I'd rather play bluemont or signal view or Unami over 3 rated 18 holers so I rate them a bit higher but I'd rather play a 4 rated 18 over any niner everytime so I top at 3.5. Hope that imperfect system makes sense over 18 holers get nudged up a bit unless bore the snot out of me

 

[RussMB]

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.

I know that's right! I grew up in Iowa where there is at least one course in a 20 mile radius, moved to Fort Worth, Tx where there are courses around every corner! (At least someone took me to play Z-boaz) I don't start playing until I'm out here! For the longest time Tupelo was our only course!

I'll digress now!

That is really cool about the course! If you can, get in touch with your local TV stations. Especially if you have any kind of event. Most news stations love a good "Feel good, here is what's happening in our area" type story. It can be a great promotion for the sport and the course. We had an "Event" last October, and I was able to hit up some of my old tv station contacts from when I was in radio. I had them come out and do a story on it. We didn't have that big of a turnout, but then again Disc Golf was unknown round these here parts. But, I've heard a lot of people say they watched that story and it got them interested, or even made dg'rs aware of the course. It's probably more prominent in your area than here, but any media coverage is good. You could even get local business support. It's possible.

I do wish I would have dropped a promo for the DGCR when I was interviewed. I was just getting into the site at the time, and didn't think about it. :doh:

 

[Jukeshoe]

I know that's right! I grew up in Iowa where there is at least one course in a 20 mile radius, moved to Fort Worth, Tx where there are courses around every corner! (At least someone took me to play Z-boaz) I don't start playing until I'm out here! For the longest time Tupelo was our only course!

I'll digress now!

That is really cool about the course! If you can, get in touch with your local TV stations. Especially if you have any kind of event. Most news stations love a good "Feel good, here is what's happening in our area" type story. It can be a great promotion for the sport and the course. We had an "Event" last October, and I was able to hit up some of my old tv station contacts from when I was in radio. I had them come out and do a story on it. We didn't have that big of a turnout, but then again Disc Golf was unknown round these here parts. But, I've heard a lot of people say they watched that story and it got them interested, or even made dg'rs aware of the course. It's probably more prominent in your area than here, but any media coverage is good. You could even get local business support. It's possible.

I do wish I would have dropped a promo for the DGCR when I was interviewed. I was just getting into the site at the time, and didn't think about it. :doh:

Actually that's a good idea. I play fairly regularly with a TV producer at a small station in Merrillville. I'll have to suggest the idea to him, although I'm not sure how much leeway he has in determining what he's going to film.

 

[RussMB]

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.

I think that that is the beauty of this site! This just how I do my reviews. Do whatever you see fit to review, whatever it may be, do your thing! Thats what makes this work. The only thing that is recommended, is that you validate why you gave the rating that you did. ...to which I may be stating the obvious.

 

[optidiscic]

This thread emphasizes the need to rank courses in order of which ones you liked to play most to those you wouldn't return to. The niners and 27ers will fall where they belong

 

[discpicable]

This thread emphasizes the need to rank courses in order of which ones you liked to play most to those you wouldn't return to. The niners and 27ers will fall where they belong

That would be awesome.

 

[Jukeshoe]

This thread emphasizes the need to rank courses in order of which ones you liked to play most to those you wouldn't return to. The niners and 27ers will fall where they belong

That's a pretty good thought. :thmbup:

 

[Dave242]

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.

Like others have said, this is a really good and intriguing point. its definitely got me chewing on how I go about combining/comparing my lists (which I keep separate, but combine on DGCR since there is no other way to do it).

But, it still leaves the question "what do the ratings numbers tell us?" Does a 2.5 rating on a 9-hole course tell me "check it out it is pretty good!" or does it take a 3.5 rating (that is the threshold I use for 18+ holers)?

Sure you can read the reviews and look at the pictures, but that minimizes the main use of ratings: Ratings are very useful for quickly homing in on the courses you definitely need to consider playing.....and also avoiding.

I doubt we will ever come to agreement, but hearing how much people deduct for being 9 holes rather than 18 or more helps me understand this.

A couple of examples in different areas of 9-holers being dinged for being only 9 holes are:
NC: I would rather play Mint Hill (3.09 rated 9 holes) than Dickerson (2.42 rated 18 holes)
IL: I would rather play either Warren Township (2.77 rated 9 holes) or Adler Park (3.26 rated 9 holes) than Bevier Park (2.88 rated 18 holes)

In both cases I think the 9 holers are much better and more enjoyable courses than their similarly rated 18 hole neighbors.

 

[RussMB]

Actually that's a good idea. I play fairly regularly with a TV producer at a small station in Merrillville. I'll have to suggest the idea to him, although I'm not sure how much leeway he has in determining what he's going to film.

A lot of times, they submit their idea for the story, and if it gets approved. They'll just go get it. Our reporter didn't have a news crew, he brought his own camera with him. He was a one man show. (He did let me film him throwing a disc or two!:thmbup If he's the producer, I think he is the final say. I could be wrong.

 

[Posey Ching]

I see each course as a unique snowflake. Ugly snowflakes get rated poorly and pretty snowflakes get rated high, regardless of size.

With snowflakes, size doesn't affect the prettiness rating. But with disc golf courses, I believe it does.

I guess I just favor bigger and more difficult courses. The average hole length of all of the 9-hole courses is probably much shorter than the average hole length of all of the 18-hole courses.

But that's just me. If I think a course has a difficulty rating of 7/10, 8/10, 9/10, or 10/10, then I would list that as a pro. Anything lower, it's a con in my eyes.

Prime example of people being on a different rating scale right here...http://www.dgcoursereview.com/revie...=&exp_min=&exp_max=&exp_played=&exp_reviewed=

I was just at this 8-hole course today and it is beyond me how anybody in their right mind could give this course a disc rating of over 3. And as you can see, more than a couple did (think it's the locals though). Even a 3 rating for this one is stretching it extremely. For one, it's only 8 holes. Two, it's completely flat and open the whole way. And three, the layout is horrible. When you are done with #8, you have to walk pretty much the whole length of the course back to #1. The layout goes in one direction and never comes back.

No matter what women say...size does matter.

 

[RussMB]

Like others have said, this is a really good and intriguing point. its definitely got me chewing on how I go about combining/comparing my lists (which I keep separate, but combine on DGCR since there is no other way to do it).

But, it still leaves the question "what do the ratings numbers tell us?" Does a 2.5 rating on a 9-hole course tell me "check it out it is pretty good!" or does it take a 3.5 rating...

You're right, it is a grey area. As far as my ratings go, it's more of guideline, than a rule. (This is just my opinion) I don't think that people compare the ratings to other courses. Course A may be a fantastic course, but no concrete tees. Course B might concrete Tee's and DISCatcher baskets. But it's a small playground rec course. They could both have a 2 star rating for completely different reasons. So, in my opinion (keyword), I think trying to compare one courses rating to another can become a moot point.

I base my rating on the experience at the course as a whole. to which in reality, doesn't transcend to other courses. It may be used in reference, but not as qualifying. The only time people compare ratings, is if they are deciding on which course to hit. We've already got the color coding to let us know whether it's 9, 18, 18+, So the rating itself, is kinda the bait to read the review. The reviews should be where the comparisons are, but the rating is the bait, or the hook, to get you to read the review. I won't get into the naming the title of your review!

 

[optidiscic]

Dave just to add another dimension to the dilemma. I call it the highway factor btween a 9(4.0) & 18(3.5)& 27(3.0) holer which is worth a 30 minute excursion off the highway. I generally never go out of my way for niners no matter how highly rated. I will do pitstops to play niners no matter how low the rating. Dave I think your idea of ranking regional courses in order of replay value will more or less solve where the niners fall. Include me in the camp for a niner search option for this site. I do enjoy a low stress short fun niner over the more epic niners for some reason. Sometimes u want that fun ace run ego boost course. I still rate those low however

 

[Posey Ching]

Like others have said, this is a really good and intriguing point. its definitely got me chewing on how I go about combining/comparing my lists (which I keep separate, but combine on DGCR since there is no other way to do it).

But, it still leaves the question "what do the ratings numbers tell us?" Does a 2.5 rating on a 9-hole course tell me "check it out it is pretty good!" or does it take a 3.5 rating (that is the threshold I use for 18+ holers)?

Sure you can read the reviews and look at the pictures, but that minimizes the main use of ratings: Ratings are very useful for quickly homing in on the courses you definitely need to consider playing.....and also avoiding.

I doubt we will ever come to agreement, but hearing how much people deduct for being 9 holes rather than 18 or more helps me understand this.

A couple of examples in different areas of 9-holers being dinged for being only 9 holes are:
NC: I would rather play Mint Hill (3.09 rated 9 holes) than Dickerson (2.42 rated 18 holes)
IL: I would rather play either Warren Township (2.77 rated 9 holes) or Adler Park (3.26 rated 9 holes) than Bevier Park (2.88 rated 18 holes)

In both cases I think the 9 holers are much better and more enjoyable courses than their similarly rated 18 hole neighbors.

I think the biggest problem with including the 9-holers and 18-holers together in the same rating system is that we all make comparisons when rating. Some people may have only played a couple of 9-hole courses so they don't have a basis for comparing.

So, if I go play a 9-holer and then drive nearby to play an 18-holer, I think it's just tough to compare the two to each other. Yes, they are both courses, but they just have different vibes coming from them.

And then there's the whole different debate of what to do with the in-betweeners...

I agree that there are 9-holers that I'd rather play than some 18-holers...but going back to why i even began posting about this...should a 9-holer ever receive a 5-disc rating? I think it should be nearly impossible. When you give a 9-holer a 5-disc rating, you're putting it in the same tier or group of the best courses in the country. I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't ever happen. But does that seem right?

 

[BrotherDave]

With snowflakes, size doesn't affect the prettiness rating. But with disc golf courses, I believe it does.

I guess I just favor bigger and more difficult courses. The average hole length of all of the 9-hole courses is probably much shorter than the average hole length of all of the 18-hole courses.

But that's just me.
No matter what women say...size does matter.

You must not be a fat guy.

Kids, gather around my knee here, I have a story to tell. I grew up on a small farm, so small that it had two roosters. One rooster was a massive, pure white cock with a magnificent red comb, Hitler's ideal of an Aryan rooster. He was the dominant cock. The other rooster was a little, scrawny red cock named Rover, about 1/3 the size of the big cock. Well, one day the big white cock thrashed the hell out of Rover, so badly that Rover had to lick his wounds for a week and was actually rendered impotent by the big cock in this fight. Well, week goes by and Rover starts getting close to the cock again, starts pestering it. He just starts sticking and moving like a little boxer, tagging the big cock and then runnin' off. Finally, the big cock gets tired of this and starts chasing Rover all around the yard until he wears out. Just as the big cock gets tired, Rover moves in and just finishes him off, Mortal Kombat style.

Moral of the story: Never underestimate a little cock.

 

[RussMB]

should a 9-holer ever receive a 5-disc rating? I think it should be nearly impossible. When you give a 9-holer a 5-disc rater, you're putting it in the same tier or group of the best courses in the country. But I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't ever happen.

IMO... I know this was directed at dave, but.... ah hell, I'm in a chatty mood! That was what I was saying earlier. I only rate on a 4 disc scale, if it's a 9 hole coures, the 5th disc or star doesn't exist. A four on a 9 hole course, is equal to a 5 on an 18 according to my reviews. The beauty of it is, a person doesn't have to know that I grade that way to see it. I'm not going to give a 5 star rating to a 9 hole course. But How many 4 star 9 hole courses have you seen on here. (cumulative, not individually) Not many, (There may be, I just haven't seen them) So they are already rare. To me

0-1: This course has issues that make it not even worth your time
2: This can be considered a course, it may be lacking, but there is a defined tee area, and there are baskets.
2.5: This is a step up, may not have all of the amenities, but there was a good fun factor. or It may have all of the amenities, but it's lacking in a big area.

For instance: I played a small little 9 holer in Iowa. It was fun, Discatchers, Concrete tees, great maps, but 2 of the baskets were uprooted out of the ground. (Due to the cold weather) I would have given it a 2.5, but the basket issues kicked it back to a 2. Which sucked because I really wanted to give it a 2.5.

moving on

3: All or most amenities, good fun factor, well thought out, well designed, I'm coming back, or I'm playing again.

3.5-4.0 reserved for the iching of 9 holers.

This is just a taste, to give you an idea of what I look for in a 9 hole course. ...roughly!

 

[scarpfish]

Can a 9-holer theoretically be 5 discs? Sure. The same way a tiny conference school with a 15 seed in its regional can theoretically win the NCAA basketball tournament. Extremely unlikely to happen.

 

[Three Putt]

I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's very unlikely. The courses I've given 5 discs to are fantastic courses with variety and a ton of challenge, and it's hard to imagine a 9 holer with the same fun factor and the same challenge.

I just checked your played list and I cannot believe you have not played Campton Hills (St Charles) yet! It had the fun factor and uniqueness and beauty down pat.....the challenge part came with playing it just with a putter with everything as a par-2 (yes, I did get one birdie!), so that's what I did to be able to rate it a 5 (the one course I went off of my normal method of rating).

Beware that it is very crowded.....but great/fun courses SHOULD be crowded!

I can see where Campton Hills has some nice fun factor, but at the end of the day you gave a 1,586' 9-hole course a five. I can't see that at all. Is it fun to rack up 2's? Certainly. I just don't think there is any way at all to "fun factor" a course whose longest hole is 223' and has six of nine holes under 200' up to a five. Add to that the crummy tees and I really can't see it. Best of the best? Not hardly.

But that's just my opinion. As for the issue of a rating a nine hole, I could see if one had everything (9 solid holes with variety, concrete tees, good signage, pretty park, elevation, benches) I would probably go a 4. Maybe a 4.5, but I really don't think I'd give a perfect 9-hole any more than that.