TOTALLY disagree with bolded statement, but that's okay!
Beauty is, we all put our own $.02 in and it all comes out a wash in the end via the law of averages!
So you're saying a "perfect" course shouldn't be playable for Joe Average?
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
The recent surge of lame reviews.
- Thread starter Danger
- Start date
So you're saying a "perfect" course shouldn't be playable for Joe Average?
Hampstead
* Ace Member *
Y'all like my new high top snuckers?
so you mean, easier tee pads for less skilled players? I kind of think of a 5.0 course as a pro level course which isn't a great course for low skilled players.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,799
Should it be playable? Yes.
Should it be accessible and score-able? Not necessarily.
A brutal course with a lighter version for lesser skilled players beats a brutal course without one any day. If Mr. Machismo plays the brutal configuration when he didn't have to, he's kind of being a bitch. If he plays it because its the only one there, he's got a somewhat legit beef.
I'll use my only 5.0 (Rollin' Ridge) as an example. Reds to reds isn't all that tough, but is going to be plenty tough for a beginner or not-so-skilled player. Blacks to blacks will test ANYBODY. And you can play any of those layouts whenever you want.
Compare that to an Idlewild. A newer player is going to go there and hate it, because it's too long and tough. That's not 5.0 material to me.
A perfect course should be just as fun for most skill levels, IMO.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,799
Fair enough.
We don't need to reach a consensus...in fact, it's best for the site if there ARE some dissenting opinions between reviewers.
Another great example is Milo McIver. Playing from the short tees is challenge enough, and a newb would have to be naturally talented to shoot under par.
The long tees can reduce an experienced player to a fetal position, sobbing and teething on his mini. A newb might walk off the course by hole 2(1156'), and would most likely write a scathing review, vowing never to return.
The long tees can reduce an experienced player to a fetal position, sobbing and teething on his mini. A newb might walk off the course by hole 2(1156'), and would most likely write a scathing review, vowing never to return.
Pssst....Juke. You notice I finally got my Gold?
Officially 1/3 of the way to catching you!
Officially 1/3 of the way to catching you!
As to poorly written reviews, I realize that language skills have deteriorated greatly in the last few decades, so sentence structure, spelling and punctuation matter not to my appreciation of a review.
What does matter is experience in playing DG, and one course doesn't provide that experience. Using myself as an example, I've played 180+ courses, but only reviewed 34. Some of those I've played many times (Dabney, Ann Mo), some I spent an entire day at(Lakeview in Sarasota), some I reviewed 'cause they were a few years old and had few or no reviews(Duncan Lake, IIT/Chicago). Yet I've let some I've played the most(Pier Park, Milo, Adair) go unreviewed 'cause they are so reviewed its hard to add anything new, or are so complex or the terrain's unsettled(Camp Tadmor, Bryant Park) that even 5 plays have yet to give me a clear perception of the course's personality and accessibility.
Or sometimes I just want to play and not worry about it.
What does matter is experience in playing DG, and one course doesn't provide that experience. Using myself as an example, I've played 180+ courses, but only reviewed 34. Some of those I've played many times (Dabney, Ann Mo), some I spent an entire day at(Lakeview in Sarasota), some I reviewed 'cause they were a few years old and had few or no reviews(Duncan Lake, IIT/Chicago). Yet I've let some I've played the most(Pier Park, Milo, Adair) go unreviewed 'cause they are so reviewed its hard to add anything new, or are so complex or the terrain's unsettled(Camp Tadmor, Bryant Park) that even 5 plays have yet to give me a clear perception of the course's personality and accessibility.
Or sometimes I just want to play and not worry about it.
Last edited:
rickles
Eagle Member
I haven't rated many courses but since i've seen much of the discussion on here prior i've tended to rate cautiously. In either case i'd rather have ratings/reviews than not have...makes the effort of playing new ones much more strategic, although the little 9 hole random course can be some of the best fun.
I could not disagree more. No course has to cater to every skill level. ESPECIALLY when there are varying levels of courses in the near area. A baller 12000' championship course could be a 5* as well as a 3500 beginner course if it is the perfect course for that skill level. That Championship level course doesnt need short pin placements or tees or less risky shots just for beginners. Courses should be rated against their purpose and how well and safely they meet that purpose.
Absolutely not. Some of the best golf courses in the world are simply not playable by the average hack. Also, I could argue that there isnt but a handful disc golf courses that cant be "played" by a first timer. It might take a while.
Short layouts add all types of complexities that "can" take away from the value of a long course. Examples. Teepads, short baskets, benches, trashcans in or just off the fairways of the long course can in some cases, take away from the course as a whole. I think of Nevin Park, the short #12 is in the fairway of the long...so potentially you could get a bad lie from a good shot. I designed the hole but I could see how someone could mark down the course because of that. Additionally shorter layouts attract a larger variety of skill levels. that leads to extra trash and vandalism...but also erosion. 2x to 3x the traffic can make pin areas more worn down, muddy, etc...which could take away from a courses rating. Im just saying shorter layouts arent always an improvement on a long course....also short layouts can be less gooder
o) or unsafe, thus taking away from the total feel of the course.Dang Indiana and ND win some games, you get content, and roll over! You are right don't give in.
Armus Patheticus
Garrulous Windbag
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 400
I am an extreme beginner and "average hack", and recognize that many courses are well beyond my ability to play "properly". Nonetheless, I would not feel uncomfortable reviewing these courses, because I know that there are lots of people like me who will play them. This isn't just about the intended skill level, but the actual skill level of the players.
I have a couple of reviews drafted that I have not yet submitted because I'm still thinking about the spectrum of potential players and imagining what may be important to the people who are better than I am (and the four that are worse). In the end, thoughtfulness and awareness of other's differing abilities and values will lead to the best reviews. This is true no matter the experience or skill level of the reviewer.
While language skills have deteriorated and lots of poor grammar and spelling should be expected in general, the unwillingness to work at learning one's native language often seems to reflect an unwillingness to think objectively (or at all), and degrades the quality of any kind of writing.
And as long as all courses in this directory are on the same rating scale and can conceivably (although not realistically) be on the top ten list, I have to disagree with that. I've seen plenty of great elementary school courses that meet their intended purpose perfectly. They might be 5's in the world of elementary school courses, but amongst all DG courses as a whole, they score a 3.5 at best.
The fact is, that this is a community composed of disc golf everymen, not top rated pros who want the most challenge. We are the IMDB of disc golf. In such a community, a course that is a brutal beatdown for a lot of folks is going to score lesser than a somewhat less challenging one that will still beat you down, but do so in a manner that will make you want to come back. Anyone whose played enough of each knows the difference.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,799
'gratz, man! :hfive:
Keep up the good work!
1978 said:
All college sports references are pretty much lost on me, sorry.
*roots for Knox College Prairie Fire* :| :|
*loathes ND and IU*
I'm not giving in, I'm simply not of the mind that everyone needs to be in agreement with me.
They probably could be, if the average hack sucked up their pride and played the shortest tees.
