Since I've played Idlewild, I'm looking at courses differently.

[bikinjack]

I have played two courses that I would rate as a five, Sugaree and WR Jackson at the IDGC, neither of which I have reviewed, due to the fact that I feel I need to play both at least once more to write a proper review. With that in mind, I would advise you to play whatever course again before you change your rating, and you (hopefully) know I'm a big fan of your reviews, Russ.

As soon as I play either of those courses again, hopefully I'll be as blown away as I was the first time, and I'll write a review that reflects as much.

 

[BrotherDave]

OK I was probably being a bit facetious when I said it has to be perfect to be a 5. There could always be more water, more elevation, more woods, bentgrass fairways, beer girls, or golf carts ...... so no, perfect isn't really that obtainable. I would agree with cydisc that 5 isn't an absolute. When I think of a 5 it has to be a course that has no major design flaws and wows you. I have yet to play a course that doesn't have a design flaw or not missing a key amenity. I think too often people get caught up in the wow factor and are then numb to or choose to ignore the design flaws or missing must have amenities.

Let's look at Idlewild. There are 5 disc ratings that list these cons ....
- You have to cross a fairway to get to a tee (major design no no)
- Tricky navigation at times, needs next tee arrows in some spots
- Nothing on the tee sign to signify what pin placement the hole is in
- Overuse of artificial OB at times
- No short tees
- Overly tight for shot shape required at times

These same issues are the only cons the people that rated the course 4.5 listed as well, however they signified this in their rating. These people, like me, see that if there is a design con or flaw it should be noted in the rating ....... shouldn't we all????

Point well taken. I will say that flaws that only affect a first time player in my eyes are lesser sins (scarcity of next tee signs) than design flaws for example. But yeah, I agree with you. I prolly wouldn't rate Idlewild a 5 simply for the fairway crossing dealio.

 

[mashnut]

To be fair, that crossing happens in such a way that it's easy to see if someone is throwing, and you walk down below the tee where almost no shots will ever go. It is a minor knock on the course, but it's the least problematic crossing I've seen.

 

[RussMB]

Point well taken. I will say that flaws that only affect a first time player in my eyes are lesser sins (scarcity of next tee signs) than design flaws for example. But yeah, I agree with you. I prolly wouldn't rate Idlewild a 5 simply for the fairway crossing dealio.

That is a great point, and I highly agree! I can think of a few flaws on various courses, that really only affect a first timer. Knowing how to throw a certain course can make all the difference in the World.

Sorry, I had to go to work. I just got home. I'm going to go through and read this thread. It looks like there are some great responses! :hfive:

...and by the way


Q: What does Minnesota and pot have in common?
A: They both get smoked in bowls!
:hfive:

 

[bjreagh]

I would also add that people need to play a 0.5-1.0 rated course as well (not that you would want to seek them out and bunches), but having experience with the extremes is very useful. If nothing else, it will make you appreciate a 2.5-3.0.

 

[optidiscic]

I would also add that people need to play a 0.5-1.0 rated course as well (not that you would want to seek them out and bunches), but having experience with the extremes is very useful. If nothing else, it will make you appreciate a 2.5-3.0.

totally agree seems some reviewers don't know only how good it can get but also dont realize how bad it can be either.

 

[RussMB]

I would also add that people need to play a 0.5-1.0 rated course as well (not that you would want to seek them out and bunches), but having experience with the extremes is very useful. If nothing else, it will make you appreciate a 2.5-3.0.

ABSOLUTELY! I totally agree! That could also lend it's self to seeing the difference between a course that is just not taken care of, and a course that was built with heart, but on a really low budget. I know in the case of our local course East Bay, it was built with donated Instep baskets, and no cash. It was built so that the city could see how well Disc Golf would be received in the area. Now the county is building 4 parks, and each park will have a DG course! :thmbup:

 

[RussMB]

I have played two courses that I would rate as a five, Sugaree and WR Jackson at the IDGC, neither of which I have reviewed, due to the fact that I feel I need to play both at least once more to write a proper review. With that in mind, I would advise you to play whatever course again before you change your rating, and you (hopefully) know I'm a big fan of your reviews, Russ.

As soon as I play either of those courses again, hopefully I'll be as blown away as I was the first time, and I'll write a review that reflects as much.

Thank you sir! I need to make another trip to the IDGC, I made it to 3 on WR Jackson, and my body said "No More!" (That was the day of my 6 course marathon run) What I played on WR I liked. I'm waiting to play Steady Ed again, to get my second opinion, changing my review. As well as Castle Hayne.

Richmond Hill, I don't think it's a 5 star course. It's a beautiful course, and it is one of my favorites. I love the canyon shots, but there is not a lot of flexibility with it. Which can make for a frustrating round! I was just trying throw out some of the more notable courses. If I'm not mistaken, it was in the top 10 at one time. But it is really, REALLY, tight!

I do agree if... Well, thanks to one of those Police car chase shows, I completely forgot what I was going to say

 

[RussMB]

I wouldn't fault you for rating it a 5. You can't blame the Castle for not having much elevation, which is its biggest con. I would absolutely rate it a 5 if they had some alternate tees but my understanding is that the club or the park one isn't having that for some dumb reason. But its got a great design, benches on every hole, length, placement holes, and a great local scene. Can't get much better than that. :thmbup:

I agree, the land factor is a circumstance that can't be changed. Castle Hayne definitely maximizes the use of the land. Look at some other courses like Trophy lakes, and The Sarge. They are so flat, that they make Castle look like a hilly terrain. They both give the player a great challenge, and they are both considered great courses .

So I think that a question in a review/rating should be "Does the course offer up a challenge that will compensate for the circumstances that are beyond control of the course designer? I think Castle Hayne definitely surpasses that criteria. I also think that there are things that can be done, that will enhance the experience. Such as segregating the course to minimize course interactions with Non-DG'rs. Definite Plus! Also giving a course a signature hole, is a great addition. Loris Nature Park: The course is vanilla, but hole 18 really is great finishing hole. It helps to end ones round on a good note. The Sarge gives the player a really cool round by playing through a swampy area.
Trophy lakes has some well place pins around numerous water hazards. If you like water, then Trophy Lakes is for you!

So I would mention terrain in my review, but depending on what the designers did with the land, I may or may not hold it against the course. Now, if there were design opportunities that were missed, then I may be more inclined to hold it against the course. I guess its all circumstantial, and should be analyzed on a course by course evaluation.

 

[Ripper]

There are trade offs to everything, even Megan Fox has pimples, and some Ferraris don't have AC. There are trade offs for everything, but another way to look at crossing hole 11 is that the designers scouted every inch of that course and found the perfect spot to end 16 and start 17 and 18 for the finish. You can only make so much with the ingredients that you get but from personnel experience I can assure that the experience is maximized to the highest potential and allot of thought and care is put into Idlewild. If it can't be a 5 because you have to cross a fairway then you have raised the bar so high, and until we have million dollar courses, that are privately designed then you are never going to have a 5 star course if that is the benchmark. Even Flip has drawbacks. What is the alternative to crossing that path, get rid of 17 and 18 ! Idlewild was designed by a disc golfer, for disc golfers, which is very unique, and lucky that Boone County gave so much land for such an awesome course. Every hole has some sort of thought and obstacle, which I have found in a few holes at other courses but not all 18. I'm very biased of course.

 

[andrewkh]

hudson mills was like that for me. it was one of the first few courses i played and one of the best still to today. when i play a new course, i usually compare it to the mills. am hoping to get down to idlewild before the weather starts getting to cold, i am hoping to hit boone and idlewild for my 49th and 50th courses played.

 

[Captain Plastic]

Idlewild is the toughest course I have ever played.
After playing Renny and Hornet's Nest is when
I really gained respect for Idlewild. Love that place.

 

[Porkchop]

Point well taken. I will say that flaws that only affect a first time player in my eyes are lesser sins (scarcity of next tee signs) than design flaws for example. But yeah, I agree with you. I prolly wouldn't rate Idlewild a 5 simply for the fairway crossing dealio.

That is a great point, and I highly agree! I can think of a few flaws on various courses, that really only affect a first timer. Knowing how to throw a certain course can make all the difference in the World.

So a first timer or a visitor / DG Tourist, whether it be a 1010 or 850 rated player, cannot have an an opinion of the course or give an accurate review because they haven't played it enough??

Hog wash ....... I've played a number of course, especially destination courses, only once; so by your logic I'm probably not giving an accurate review on theses courses. I've played enough courses and for enough years to know how to give an accurate review with only one visit.

I think its quite the contrary. I think people give their most accurate reviews when they don't have their local or favoritism blinders on. I think courses need to be designed first and foremost for the first time visitor, because first impressions are always most important. The goal is to wow them back, leave them with a positive experience, and avoid any negative comments. When a course does all of these then its a 5 to me.

Navigational issues, even if small, are hard for a first timer to let go. I hearken this to one of my favorite courses, Walnut Rige, has some navigational issues and is the biggest con for first timers so I don't fault them if then knock its rating because of this (nor do I think they need to play it more than once to give an accurate review).

While I'm talking about favorites that's another issue I see. Many people rate their favorites as 5's, but just because its one of your favorites doesn't automatically deem it a 5. For example Walnut Ridge while one of my favorites, and well worthy of a 4, is far from a 5. Its got some flow issues and is very lefty friendly from a design standard just or starters.

 

[BrotherDave]

So a first timer or a visitor / DG Tourist, whether it be a 1010 or 850 rated player, cannot have an an opinion of the course or give an accurate review because they haven't played it enough??

Hog wash ....... I've played a number of course, especially destination courses, only once; so by your logic I'm probably not giving an accurate review on theses courses. I've played enough courses and for enough years to know how to give an accurate review with only one visit.

I think its quite the contrary. I think people give their most accurate reviews when they don't have their local or favoritism blinders on. I think courses need to be designed first and foremost for the first time visitor, because first impressions are always most important. The goal is to wow them back, leave them with a positive experience, and avoid any negative comments. When a course does all of these then its a 5 to me.

Navigational issues, even if small, are hard for a first timer to let go. I hearken this to one of my favorite courses, Walnut Rige, has some navigational issues and is the biggest con for first timers so I don't fault them if then knock its rating because of this (nor do I think they need to play it more than once to give an accurate review).

While I'm talking about favorites that's another issue I see. Many people rate their favorites as 5's, but just because its one of your favorites doesn't automatically deem it a 5. For example Walnut Ridge while one of my favorites, and well worthy of a 4, is far from a 5. Its got some flow issues and is very lefty friendly from a design standard just or starters.

You pulled that out of thin air my friend, neither of us implied what you are saying. I simply stated that not all cons are created equally and that navigational issues, if easily corrected by a second round through, are less flawed than safety issues like crossing fairways. I don't like being lost my first visit to a course either but I've been to a few courses where previous reviewers made it sound like an indecipherable jungle when in actuality any doofus that's been hunting or hiking once can figure out where to go. So in my eyes it's more subjective than a safety issue like tees very close to baskets.

 

[RussMB]

So a first timer or a visitor / DG Tourist, whether it be a 1010 or 850 rated player, cannot have an an opinion of the course or give an accurate review because they haven't played it enough??

Hog wash ....... I've played a number of course, especially destination courses, only once; so by your logic I'm probably not giving an accurate review on theses courses. I've played enough courses and for enough years to know how to give an accurate review with only one visit.

I didn't say that an accurate review couldn't be given. I said

Originally Posted by RussMB
That is a great point, and I highly agree! I can think of a few flaws on various courses, that really only affect a first timer. Knowing how to throw a certain course can make all the difference in the World.

Now, I'm not saying this as a broad statement meaning everyone. But there are people that will write off a course, and Slam it because it was "Too Tough"
, To many trees, to many turns, etc... All based on their first time playing it.
We know that some people will do this, just check the reviews. A nice red flag for one of these reviews is that it will be a cheap shot review that pretty much says, "THIS COURSE SUCKS! ...or in some cases "TIS CORSE SUX!"

...but I'll digress.

Now, I've experienced this on more than one occasion. Frustration! I'm the type of person that will try to highlight a courses good points, even if it's not that great of a course. I think that at the heart of a course, should lie the heart by which it was designed. Someone put the time and trouble in to bringing it into existence, so I don't want to bash someone elses work. So I try to be gentle in addressing the negatives, even delivering it in a positive light.

Which brings me back to my point, Frustration! If a course becomes more frustrating to play, than enjoyable, then the odds are greater of a negative review being written. Who is the most likely to become the most frustrated? Overconfident beginners, and/or newcomers to the course. (Keywords "Most likely, not everybody) Now for myself, If I get frustrated I will wait a few days before writing it. I like to be consistent, I don't want to get into blasting a course. (I've only blasted one) Some people won't do this, they will have a bad experience for whatever reason, and nail the course to the wall. ...and probably "unlike" a few reviews while they are at it!

So, yes! I can think of a few flaws that would frustrate newcomers, cause a few of them to get frustrated. and Yes, There can be a drastic change of opinion of a course, between the first time it's played and the second. I would say that Navigation is the leading cause of this, but knowing what lines to throw can also be a factor. Also included in this, but not limited to, would be Lost Discs, Multiple trees hit, spending a lot time looking for ones disc or All of the above. ...or you are Machismo!

I can think of a few flaws on various courses, that really only affect a first timer. Knowing how to throw a certain course can make all the difference in the World. For me, it was Pioneer Trail@Rodeo Park and it was because of bad navigation! I was frustrated the first time I played here, and the second time I played here I had a blast. So this is a factor, and it does happen. I never said it happens to everyone. Nor did I say that one couldn't write a review afterwards. ...not even sure where you got that.

 

[wkelly42]

I don't think I've ever played a course for the first time where I DIDN'T have a navigational issue. The first time it was purely me, and I never mentioned it in my review. The other times, it was only partially me, so I mention it in the review as much to warn other first-timers who read the course reviews. I never really factored any of them into my final rating for the course; unless I spent a ton of time wandering around in the woods completely lose, I doubt I'd really make a navigational issues a big negative.

I usually write a review after my first time on a course; if my opinion changes after playing it again, I revise the review. I write a lot of reviews of a lot of things -- in the past three years I've gotten a metric TON of free books, DVDs, CDs, and other stuff because I write reviews. The major purpose of those reviews is to tell someone if they should buy something. I look at course reviews the same way -- I'm telling a first-time visitor to that course whether they should bother with it or not, and what they might need to know if they decide to play it.

 

[wolito]

I have played Beaver Ranch/Confier and knew it was a top 5 course before playing. I think it have validated how I reveiw a course and what rating I give them. I don't look at any other course differently now because of playing such a highly rated course.

 

[Porkchop]

I think you guys are looking too much into the "navigational issues" I've pointed out at Idlewild, I am simply using this as an example seeing how it's the course headlining this thread (a thread heading that would lead one to believe that Idlewild should be the barometer that all course ratings be based on). The key point to take away from my view is that flaws, whether they are big or small and or subjective to the reviewer, are still flaws and should be used in the evaluation / review process.

I will agree that there are some things that can be overlooked because of give and take. There are a lot of times you have to sacrifice a design element for the greater good of the course, which I'm fine with and might be the case with the cross-over at Idlewild ...... so I can let that go (for now, until I play Idlewild).

If you tend not to factor in small navigational issues in your rating / review because you've never played a course the first time where you didn't have any navigational issues than you need to play a course that does. I've played courses that go the extra mile and have next tee signs after every hole and have tee signs that notify what location the pin is in. Amenities like this (and benches, trash cans, bag hooks, etc) are what push a great course above and beyond to a 5.

I've played courses that have 5 star design and courses that have 5 star amenities ..... I have yet to play a course that has both.

 

[danhyzer]

having just played Idlewild last week. I jus wanted to say that I wish more DGCourses had the people and the vision no matter how long or how the terrain might be to put back all the love into your Disc Golf Course like the people involved did at Idlewild (It's alright to play, but everyone of of us has do to something to make this sport to grow besides just playing). Thank you Fred and Bob and all your other friends that helped with this remarkable DGC. It is a privledge to play here and do every chance I get when I'm in the area.

I don't know if it was because of all the "cheerleaders" (guy's you shouldn't even be looking at these young girls, just appreciate that they're trying to have fun too and it's not just a Disc Golf park. Even though this DGC is one of the best in the World. It's still a park and we should be respectfull of others who want to enjoy the space that the city of Burlington, Ky. offers us). or their parents watching them at the tee area of hole # 1, but I didn't see any indication of which basket position the course was in the day I played and wished that it could be marked somehow on each hole.

Great DGC, Great time. Thanks again for all your efforts------------- - +

 

[RussMB]

I think you guys are looking too much into the "navigational issues" I've pointed out at Idlewild, I am simply using this as an example seeing how it's the course headlining this thread (a thread heading that would lead one to believe that Idlewild should be the barometer that all course ratings be based on). The key point to take away from my view is that flaws, whether they are big or small and or subjective to the reviewer, are still flaws and should be used in the evaluation / review process.

I will agree that there are some things that can be overlooked because of give and take. There are a lot of times you have to sacrifice a design element for the greater good of the course, which I'm fine with and might be the case with the cross-over at Idlewild ...... so I can let that go (for now, until I play Idlewild).

If you tend not to factor in small navigational issues in your rating / review because you've never played a course the first time where you didn't have any navigational issues than you need to play a course that does. I've played courses that go the extra mile and have next tee signs after every hole and have tee signs that notify what location the pin is in. Amenities like this (and benches, trash cans, bag hooks, etc) are what push a great course above and beyond to a 5.

I've played courses that have 5 star design and courses that have 5 star amenities ..... I have yet to play a course that has both.

I may need to clarify this, and bring things back towards the topic. Porkchop, I think me and you are on the same page. The whole point to this thread, was to discuss how previously played courses are viewed after playing a top 5 course. In my case, I overlooked the cross over. Hence the 5 stars I gave it. The whole reason I mentioned it, was because it was an example. I wasn't slamming Idlewild because of it. In fact, I admire the fact that they have a cross over, and the rating is unaffected by this. That was the reason I mentioned it! I feel the same way about West Lake, and the issues with Park attendee's. The park attendees are to West Lake, as the Cross over is to Idlewild. In my opinion!

I'm not sure how the whole first timer issue came up, but that is really a moot point. I want to know if anyone went back and changed a review of another course because they thought it Better/worse, after playing a top 5 course.