So, Idlewild is down to 3rd

[Jukeshoe]

Sounds like someone just was a whiney pissy little d-bag that had a tear in his beer after throwing 18 over on an 18.

I once shot a +32 over 24 and gave the course 4.5.

Because I sucked, not the course.

Dude needs to take a cue from the "Man Up" playbook. :\

 

[NDABRUSH]

I once shot a +32 over 24 and gave the course 4.5.

Because I sucked, not the course.

Dude needs to take a cue from the "Man Up" playbook. :\

Agreed. Most courses pimp slap me but a course being difficult doesn't take away from my enjoyment. I expect a beatdown.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I can't think of a Gold level course I would consider "fun" to play. There are a few holes maybe but the best ones are typically tough, challenging, brutal, disc bending, tricky, disc eating, devious, nasty, nut-busting and heart breaking which results in enjoyment for both the disc golf masochists who play them and the design sadists who work hard to make them.

 

[tallpaul]

When you've been playing 10 or 20 years; gold level courses are really the only "fun" ones to play....all the others you think you should be slaying (but, often do not; unless you're truly pro). At least at the gold level courses your poor scoring is easily justified. Whole different outlook when you get to be an "old man."

 

[mashnut]

It's definitely true that we spend way too much time worrying about the top ten, but that doesn't mean that a 1 disc review for a 5 rated course that had never been given lower than a 3.5 is any more valid, especially when there isn't any real content to the review. The reviewer absolutely has the right to give it that rating, but with nothing to back up a rating so far off from what everyone else has given the course, it can't be any surprise that it's not going to get very good feedback.

 

[ElementZ]

This saddened me a bit, but the only thing you can really do is give it a thumbs down. :/
I'm an average player and it was still the time of my life playing this course.

 

[ProOffense]

Just a thought...

As i'm sure most of you guys, like myself, travel often to play new courses. Now, the only reason i see anyone getting a little perturbed about ratings is simple and possibly cataclysmic to patrons. I for one, rely partially on a review to decide whether or not I drive 1-2 hours to play a course. Some people rely on that single fact a lot more. Granted, I know this doesn't apply to Idlewild or any other course with an average rating over 4. Though, if a course was a four one day, then a three the next... I wouldn't be so inclined to ride out a distance to play it. (not knowing it was ever rated higher) However, I can appreciate a low rated course and enjoy it fully. I have played Idlewild more than a couple times, and have enjoyed it every time! I like challenging. How can you get any better as a competitor if you play suck ass courses all the time?? :doh: Anyways, that is just a thought.

 

[jdggna]

It's definitely true that we spend way too much time worrying about the top ten, but that doesn't mean that a 1 disc review for a 5 rated course that had never been given lower than a 3.5 is any more valid, especially when there isn't any real content to the review. The reviewer absolutely has the right to give it that rating, but with nothing to back up a rating so far off from what everyone else has given the course, it can't be any surprise that it's not going to get very good feedback.

Just to play devil's advocate: What about all the reviews that don't say anything useful that still rated the course a 5? Its a double edged sword. With courses like this you'll still find useful reviews that have given it a sub-4 rating get way to many thumbs down while a reworded copy of a previous review will get tons of thumbs up.

 

[mashnut]

Just to play devil's advocate: What about all the reviews that don't say anything useful that still rated the course a 5? Its a double edged sword. With courses like this you'll still find useful reviews that have given it a sub-4 rating get way to many thumbs down while a reworded copy of a previous review will get tons of thumbs up.

Very true. I thumb down those 5 disc reviews that are lacking in content too, and a review like Dave242 that gave it a lower rating but did a good job of justifying it gets a thumbs up from me. It is an issue that too many people base their thumbs on the rating not the content of the review, but that's a tough thing to change.

 

[Eagle]

IMO, for a course to receive very high ratings EVERY time it's reviewed, it has to be a course that appeals to EVERYONE.

I applaud the reviewer for giving his honest rating and opinion of this course, as opposed to just going along with the 'status quo', of other reviewers. :clap:

 

[mashnut]

IMO, for a course to receive very high ratings EVERY time it's reviewed, it has to be a course that appeals to EVERYONE.

I applaud the reviewer for giving his honest rating and opinion of this course, as opposed to just going along with the 'status quo', of other reviewers. :clap:

I would agree if the rating was backed up with any real content to the review, but there's nothing about the course or why the reviewer gave it the rating he did.

 

[Nathanbr2]

Where are the girls?:\

well...you say that...but

my girlfriend plays quite often, and refuses to play the womens tees. (which sadly, in a year or so she's been playing, she beaten me on a hole or two...thanks to some very....well placed trees):wall:

 

[srm_520]

Ugghhh. Sorry didn't read the poll closely enough - wrong vote. Although not great choices.

 

[mrstiggy]

As i'm sure most of you guys, like myself, travel often to play new courses. Now, the only reason i see anyone getting a little perturbed about ratings is simple and possibly cataclysmic to patrons. I for one, rely partially on a review to decide whether or not I drive 1-2 hours to play a course. Some people rely on that single fact a lot more. Granted, I know this doesn't apply to Idlewild or any other course with an average rating over 4. Though, if a course was a four one day, then a three the next... I wouldn't be so inclined to ride out a distance to play it. (not knowing it was ever rated higher) However, I can appreciate a low rated course and enjoy it fully. I have played Idlewild more than a couple times, and have enjoyed it every time! I like challenging. How can you get any better as a competitor if you play suck ass courses all the time?? :doh: Anyways, that is just a thought.

I agree with you 100%, I travel for my job and rely on the reviews to determine the courses I am going to play in while in town. Giving unfair reviews based on how you played the course might mean the difference between me seeing a good course and not.

 

[Eagle]

I would agree if the rating was backed up with any real content to the review, but there's nothing about the course or why the reviewer gave it the rating he did.

Agreed, it's a minimal review. I just don't think his review takes anything away from the course. I know his review won't deter me from playing there, if I get the chance.

I think his review could even be helpful to other "average" players like him, who choose to play Idlewild, and end up biting off more than they can chew, like he did.

Mostly, I'm just amused that the guy that started this thread is pissed, because Idlewild got bumped to 3rd, yet he's never even played a top 10 course according to his original post.

 

[Eagle]

OT: Valerie Jenkins shoots a 1003 rated round at "Charlottes Web". Wow!

 

[Dave242]

Here are some of the things that I think EVERYONE should consider when reviewing courses.

1. Course Design: is it just some baskets in the forest, or did someone think it out.
2. Litter, Upkeep: Nothing makes me mad like a trashed course that could be beautiful, or bashed up disccatchers that were installed 3 years ago.
3. TeePads are important, no body likes throwing from a dirt trench.
4. The folks on the course. Good locals can go a long way in a review.
5. Signs and ease of navigation.
6. Course dedication, I am not too big on sharing with the football and soccer players.

I think having a list of metrics/rubric to base your reviews (and ratings) on. It helps a ton to have consistency in your ratings& reviews across all the courses you have played and to even rank them in a meaningful order. IMO, all reviewers should have a list of the things they base their ratings/reviews on in their profile.

Regarding this list as it pertains to ratings (I realize you said reviews):

2. Litter & Upkeep is very important if you want to have a nice course. Locals may know if that is a consistent problem. My issue with making that a big part of the course rating is that someone could come along tomorrow and clean it all up.

4. When playing a round at a course you interact if at all, it is with the 1 group in front of you and the one group behind you. It is totally up to chance if you get stuck between jerks or cool cats. This has nothing to do with the course and does not go a long way towards a review!

5. Signs and ease of navigation are very nice to have......and especially nice to newcomers to the course (and to the game). BUT.....since maybe only 5% of the rounds at a given course are played by those people, they are not really that important on the grand scheme of things. That is good info to put in a review, but should not factor into the rating.

 

[Paulychains]

A note from Pauly

I'm fine with all comments regarding my low rating of Idlewild. Discussion is good and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have played about 100 courses in 14 states. I know nobody associated with Idlewild. My review was based on the fact that I did'nt enjoy the course. I don't really care where it's rated...I just know that it's not even in my top 20.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not enjoying a course based on your skill level should have little to do with the rating of the course for players who do have the skills. But then that's a failing of this popularity rating system.

 

[Swisher Streets]

I'm fine with all comments regarding my low rating of Idlewild. Discussion is good and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have played about 100 courses in 14 states. I know nobody associated with Idlewild. My review was based on the fact that I did'nt enjoy the course. I don't really care where it's rated...I just know that it's not even in my top 20.

I respect your right to vote whatever rating you want, but do you honestly think Volunteer Park's 6 hole course deserves a better rating than Idlewild? http://www.dgcoursereview.com/profile.php?id=1128