Rating 9-holers versus 18-holers

[Posey Ching]

lmao

Moral of the story: Never underestimate a little cock.

if only the little 9-holers had some fight in em. You have to give them weapons (par 2 on all holes) to survive.

great bedtime story btw :thmbup:

 

[RussMB]

That's a common thing with the 9 holers here in SC, either they have a lot of one thing, but lack key elements in other spots. Like this courses in Charleston. Johns Island DGC Real nice baskets, Concrete Tee's, No maps, but they really aren't needed, Beautiful little recreation park, But the course layout it is blah, I used my putter for most of the holes. I mean someone put the time and effort to make it nice, but the layout... not so much.

 

[RussMB]

One thing that just bugs me, and I see this happen on smaller 9 hole courses. Someone designed a course, and for whatever reason, they thought it would be a fantastic idea to let it play next to a playground. This is from the Johns Island course.

 

[Posey Ching]

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.

Now there's a good analogy. Much better than all this cock fighting, snowflake, double disc music CD business lol.

 

[dreadlock86]

i don't think the number of holes ought to necessarily have any bearing on a course rating unless it is to distinguish between 4.5 and 5

in my mind anyway, it is easiest to hold 9's and 18's to the same standard just to compare ratings. a 3 rated 9er and a 3 rated 18 should be equally as enjoyable a round with similar features/amenities. i can always play any course twice if i want to play more holes.

in the case of the theoretically "perfect" 9er, i would call it a 4.5 because there is one conceivable way it could be better; it could have 18 holes. perhaps you could make the case for a "perfect" 9er that would be impossible to expand to 18, there is no way it could be any better. :/

 

[Dave242]

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.

if only the little 9-holers had some fight in em. You have to give them weapons (par 2 on all holes) to survive.

Like Posey says, you gotta give some nine holers some fight. I did that by making it a par-2 superclass course. The up-down-right-left variety made Campton a amazing challenge along with being a ton of fun. (as stated, this is something I have done 1 in 236 times - 0.42% of the time). So, I guess I agree with you that it took me going way out of my normal method to find a way to make a 9-holer a 5.0.

Oh and Posey Ching.......what is a Posey Ching? Does it come from a disc golf nursery rhyme?

Ching around the rosey
A pocket full of Posey
Ace runs, ace runs
they all fall down

 

[magictenor1]

I don't change my rating per se for the # of holes. I try to rate based on the course itself and how much I enjoy it ie do i really want to play there again?

 

[Dave242]

yeah - that is good in theory and is what I tried to do for a long time. Problem is, "enjoy" is based on real and concrete/measurable things. I do not know what it is for you, but for many it is things like variety, challenge, etc. With less holes there is less chance for that.

Likewise, on a 24 or 27 hole course, throw-away holes are no big deal since the extra holes usually more than make up for those....so it is easier to overlook them. If there are 4 boring holes out of 18, that is a significant downer, but if the extra holes have 5-6 great holes that more than makes up for it. So......there is absolutely no margin for error for a 9-holer to get a good rating.

 

[magictenor1]

I agree that it would be harder for a 9 holer to get a high rating. I do think it's a bonus if there are more than 18 holes in one place also.

 

[RussMB]

Likewise, on a 24 or 27 hole course, throw-away holes are no big deal since the extra holes usually more than make up for those....so it is easier to overlook them. If there are 4 boring holes out of 18, that is a significant downer, but if the extra holes have 5-6 great holes that more than makes up for it. So......there is absolutely no margin for error for a 9-holer to get a good rating.

That's a great point, I hadn't thought about it from that angle. But it makes sense! Also, 9 hole courses are more likely to be placed in an area that has to share a park, or it's crammed into a small piece of land.

 

[Dave242]

I agree that it would be harder for a 9 holer to get a high rating. I do think it's a bonus if there are more than 18 holes in one place also.

And you know what .........that is basically how it works on this site. So, it I am guessing the rating system here for 9 vs 18 holers works for you and for many others probably.

I suppose what this thread boils down to is how we best interpret the data so it has meaning/usefulness to use.

 

[RussMB]

I suppose what this thread boils down to is how we best interpret the data so it has meaning/usefulness to use.

You hit the nail on the head!

for me, personally, I look at like this

less than 9, 9, and 18+. 18 and over gets the same treatment.

 

[raydancer]

The real problem here is that you've got a single rating to relay both objective and subjective information. So you've got facts competing for stars with opinions and relative information. You have "this course has 18 holes and clean bathrooms" versus "I love Innova baskets and I live right down the road".

This is the problem with rating systems in general. My question is this: could the rating system be changed to become more useful, yet still retain some kind of simplicity? In this thread alone, challenge and variety have been mentioned multiple times...why not have a few different star meters for a few very specific categories such as these.

On a side note, why not compare this to movies? Does a movie have to be three hours long to be great? Can a move be pretty perfect and yet be an hour and a half?

 

[scarpfish]

Here's really something to consider why 9-holers get the ugly end of things.

Why are 9 hole courses built?

- There isn't enough land for 18 holes.
- There isn't enough money for 18 holes.
- A 9 hole course will suit things for the demographic its being built for.
- As an introductory course to test for the feasibility of eventually installing an 18 holer on the same land.

Where are 9 hole courses often built?

- In small parks that won't fit 18 holes
- In small towns where the town's only park can only suit 9 holes (and often a dangerously crammed 9).
- School grounds
- Private or corporate property meant for personal/company use.

Who are 9 hole courses largely built for?

- Beginners who are trying to learn the game
- Recreational level players who emphasize fun over challenge
- School age players
- Small town residents for whom it may be the only game in town

And in ball golf its much the same story. I mean how many serious players in either sport do you know who will travel across the country to play 9 hole courses, especially when there are plenty of quality 18 holers around?

 

[waynewf]

I say you judge a course on what it has. Why couldn't a 9 hole course be 5 star if it is laid out very well? It's all about use of space. Would you rather have a really nice 9 or even an odd number, say 12 holes....or have them jam 18 in and ruin what could have been some very nice holes.

Maybe a separate thread should be dedicated to "why 9 or 18?" Why not 7 or 12 or 15 or whatever the land at hand best supports??

 

[magictenor1]

I say you judge a course on what it has. Why couldn't a 9 hole course be 5 star if it is laid out very well? It's all about use of space. Would you rather have a really nice 9 or even an odd number, say 12 holes....or have them jam 18 in and ruin what could have been some very nice holes.

Maybe a separate thread should be dedicated to "why 9 or 18?" Why not 7 or 12 or 15 or whatever the land at hand best supports??

Sometimes that does happen. Bear Creek in Texas was 12 holes for quite a while and my brother asked the designer why. he said that was what there was room for, a good 12 holes. Later more land adjacent became available and the course expanded to 18. Also I saw on another thread that John Houck just finished a 6 hole design because that was what was available. I have played courses with 19,20, 21,23 and 24 holes as well as the standard 9,18,27.

 

[BrotherDave]

Here's a hypothetical: Suppose we take the best hole from each of the top 9 rated courses and combined them into a super 9-holer, would people still have difficulty giving it 4-5's b/c it lacks 9-more holes?

 

[WillA]

I do not downgrade courses for having just nine holes. But I've never played a really good nine hole course. I'm not saying there aren't any. I'm sure there are. I just haven't had the good fortune to play one.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If you believe that 9 holers automatically can't earn 5 stars, then you would have to agree that 18-holers can't be 5 stars either, just the best 27 holers. Right? Even the most awesome 18-holer just couldn't be good enough in comparison to the best 27-holer or even 24-holer.

 

[billnchristy]

I have reviewed 11 9 holers in GA, SC, NC, FL and have 2-.5s, 1-2, 3-2.5s, 4-3s, 1-3.5

I have never rated an 18 that low, the lowest was 1.5 and it would probably be .5 or less now because it has been abandoned.

Here is the reason I think you find more utter crap 9 holers, much for the reasons above with who and where they are put in...also who designs them? *for the most part* it is an unexperienced land owner or parks person and they may or may not have a solid grasp of what it takes.

The 3.5, River City Nature Park, was done by a professional design group and featured 2 teepads, both concrete, signs, multiple pin positions, an ace board, bulletin board, and free bugspray...how can you go wrong there? Its issue...some high grass, and not a huge amount of variety given the flat land...but they did the best with what they had.

Could there be a 5 star 9 holer? Yeah I think so, it would take a prime piece of land, full amenities, and maybe even some above and beyond stuff. I think the prime piece of land is the problem...how many 7-10 acre lots feature every terrain type and are located amongst other land that is at your disposal?