Should Insects/Mosquitos Factor Into a Course Rating?

[wolito]

I think definately a consideration that should be placed in other comments section. I have played courses that were so bad with mosquitos and gnats that I nearly had to leave. Definately took away from the experience. Now should that affect the rating? No.

 

[Dave242]

I think you missed my point. Maybe this will help.

If you show up to a course that is in bottom land next to a creek but there hasn't been any great ammount of rain lately, would you not have a tendancy to rate that course higher than if you showed up after a recent rain only to find many of the holes unplayable?

I think that not taking into account the conditions that you find the course in when you play does a disservice in that it skews the average rating higher.

I did not miss your point, I just disagree with it. In my profile I say this and I do my best to stick to it in my ratings:
I rate all courses from the longest tee pads available (unless otherwise noted) and assume ideal conditions if I am playing/evaluating in less than that.

IMO it is lazy to not factor out less than ideal conditions and just rate on how it was when you played it. Beauty is compromised by lousy weather (or playing in the winter for that matter), many holes are made more (or less) difficult by wind, frustration of lost discs on many courses depends on the length of the prairie grass or depth of the streams/ponds/puddles, things can be overrun with trash (and then picked up the hour after I leave), etc etc etc.

The crux of the matter is that rating a course based on how the course made you feel adds to subjectivity and the goal should be to do everything possible to reduce subjectivity. Rating courses is inherently subjective no matter how you slice it, but to review/rate consistently to one's own standards/criteria/rubric, one must do your best to objectify the subjective. Otherwise, your ratings (and pros and cons in your review) are not truly trustworthy.

 

[billnchristy]

Would playing a round with poopy pants affect the rating?

I am sure it affected those playing behind you.

Dude, I would've ditched the boxers...unless they were 24k plated or something.

 

[ArcheType]

I think insects should affect the rating if you play there enough to know its always like that,

As someone in the midwest (mosquito heaven) I can say, Shorewood park ALWAYS has worse mosquitoes than West Park, or Highland Park. With that knowledge, it did affect my rating, the park district could do something about the pools of gross standing water there, but don't. So it deserves to be rated as such. Its still a fun park, but you almost must have bug spray to enjoy it. Just like Community Park, with its infamous 'tar pit" (gross water hole behind the basket on 15) those places are breeding grounds for mosquitoes, so they're always worse at that course.

When its always an issue, rate it. If the baskets were broken or stolen, would you lower the rating? Probably not, but if I came back a year later, and the same baskets were gone, I would.

 

[Dthunderchicken]

I did not miss your point, I just disagree with it. In my profile I say this and I do my best to stick to it in my ratings:
I rate all courses from the longest tee pads available (unless otherwise noted) and assume ideal conditions if I am playing/evaluating in less than that.

IMO it is lazy to not factor out less than ideal conditions and just rate on how it was when you played it. Beauty is compromised by lousy weather (or playing in the winter for that matter), many holes are made more (or less) difficult by wind, frustration of lost discs on many courses depends on the length of the prairie grass or depth of the streams/ponds/puddles, things can be overrun with trash (and then picked up the hour after I leave), etc etc etc.

The crux of the matter is that rating a course based on how the course made you feel adds to subjectivity and the goal should be to do everything possible to reduce subjectivity. Rating courses is inherently subjective no matter how you slice it, but to review/rate consistently to one's own standards/criteria/rubric, one must do your best to objectify the subjective. Otherwise, your ratings (and pros and cons in your review) are not truly trustworthy.

However your perception of ideal conditions may not be everyone elses. I happen to like playing in the wind and do not mind what most would consider cold.

If you evaluate a course with yourself imagining ideal conditions you aren't really rating the course. You're rating your minds eye view of what the course could be. I'd rather know what a course is actually like, not what it might (or might not) be like some day.

I can see how and why you're trying to be as consistant as possible. I'm not sure that using your imagination is a good way to achive that consistancy.

 

[tmahan]

If a bug issue at a course is significantly worse thn others in the same area it's worth a mention in a review, and if it bothered an individual to the point where they rated it down a smidge for it I worldn't blame him (or her). My home course Seneca has a pretty bad gnat issue during the warm weather months. If you visited Druid, Rockburn, Patapsco and Seneca all on the same day odds are the gnats would be worse at Seneca (not that there wouldn't be any at the other courses). It's weird because it's not like it's built on a swamp or anything, it's very hilly. I love the course so I've just gotten used to it. It seems that deet is like BBQ sauce to the gnats there.

 

[Dave242]

If you evaluate a course with yourself imagining ideal conditions you aren't really rating the course. You're rating your minds eye view of what the course could be. I'd rather know what a course is actually like, not what it might (or might not) be like some day.

I can see how and why you're trying to be as consistant as possible. I'm not sure that using your imagination is a good way to achive that consistancy.

If I was using my imagination to rate courses based off aerial maps, pictures and videos I would posolutely absitively agree with you. But, it does not take a mental giant to imagine how a course would play without puddles, with grass mowed, garbage picked up, snow melted, bug free, or in calm/warm/sunny conditions.

It does take some thought (and educated guesswork at times) to figure out what a wooded course with leaves would look/play/"feel" like when you visit in the winter. I am not sure I always succeed in this endeavor, but I try pretty hard. IMO, ideal conditions are early summer (before things get overgrown). The pictures on this site help, but surprisingly there are tons of winter pictures here (which fail to show off courses in the best light possible).

 

[ag1052]

If a bug issue at a course is significantly worse thn others in the same area it's worth a mention in a review, and if it bothered an individual to the point where they rated it down a smidge for it I worldn't blame him (or her).

Well said... I completely agree.

 

[Crooow]

I know it has been discussed many times in many threads but the whole course rating thing is very subjective. One of the reasons that I have only reviewed 2 of the 66 courses that I have played is that I don't feel qualified since I am still pretty amateurish and I wouldn't want top players to operate on my inexperienced opinion. The 2 I reviewed were because one had zero reviews (so I figured 1 review is better than none) and the other was no longer really a course so I wanted to warn people away. Another item that I see cited as a negative is lack of trash cans. Seneca Creek Park in Maryland does not have any trash cans anywhere in the park and this is intentional i.e. they actually removed them a few years ago. I asked the park rangers and they said that the trash cans attack swarms of bees and actually make the park less attractive. They asked why can't people just carry out their own trash? Following their logic, having trash cans at a course would be a negative. Many courses I have only played once and don't want a review based off this single experience (I could have had a bad day, there could have been a rare occurrence at the park that ruined it for me, etc.). There are many courses that I have played and intellectually knew that they are good (e.g. PAw Paw) but I just didn't enjoy them for a variety of reasons. So I found it too hard to be objective. Navigation is another controversial item - it really only affects your first trip to the course but then again, many people use this site to decide whether to visit a new course. Just so many variables that I think we are stuck with people adding reviews freely and letting the natural averaging work itself out. The only bad thing I see is someone rating down a course just so their home course is rated higher. If that could be eliminated.........

 

[Dthunderchicken]

If I was using my imagination to rate courses based off aerial maps, pictures and videos I would posolutely absitively agree with you. But, it does not take a mental giant to imagine how a course would play without puddles, with grass mowed, garbage picked up, snow melted, bug free, or in calm/warm/sunny conditions.

It does take some thought (and educated guesswork at times) to figure out what a wooded course with leaves would look/play/"feel" like when you visit in the winter. I am not sure I always succeed in this endeavor, but I try pretty hard. IMO, ideal conditions are early summer (before things get overgrown). The pictures on this site help, but surprisingly there are tons of winter pictures here (which fail to show off courses in the best light possible).

How would you handle this review situation. In `09 I reviewed Baca in Albq. I had already played the course several times in `07. But when I got back there in `09 it looked like hell. The trash cans were overflowing. There were piles of trash (beer cans and bottles mostly) at about every third tee. (These piles were old enough that the labels and cans were fading.) The brush had grown so much that even with a map some of the pins were hard to find. And there was some minor vandalism. I deliberately dropped the rating the the course would have gotten because of these things.

I guess what I'm really asking is, in your mind how long does a trash pile have to exist before it becomes part of a course and subject to being included in the review? Obviously in my opinion, if it's there when I am, it affects the review.

 

[Dave242]

I make exceptions for the exceptions.....and state them as such.

 

[DavidSauls]

From the other side of the fence.....as a reader, I'd like the reviews and ratings to reflect how the course normally is. At least, as much as possible.

Put everything you can think of, good or bad, into the reviews, and I'll decide whether I care that it was raining the day you played it.

But in the rating---the initial basis on which I may choose to play the course, or not---please do your best to rate it as in normally is, not how it was on a rainy day or in snow or whatever. If you've played it a lot, you should have no problem. If you only play a course once or twice, Dave's right that you should be able to play in the rain or a hurricane or when the grass is a little shaggy, and estimate very well how it plays under normal conditions.

 

[Dthunderchicken]

I make exceptions for the exceptions.....and state them as such.

Would your exception show up in the course rating or just in the comments?

I can see not knocking a rating down because of weather. (If I play in the rain, snow, heat, etc it's because I want to play and shouldn't be held against the course.) However if there is a problem with the course that can be fixed but hasn't, and that looks like it has been a problem for a while, I think it should be taken into account in the rating as well as in the comments.

 

[KatanaDisc]

In regions where it gets cold it shouldn't be much of a factor because they are not a problem year round.

 

[Phil_Ludvik]

I think insects should affect the rating if you play there enough to know its always like that,

As someone in the midwest (mosquito heaven) I can say, Shorewood park ALWAYS has worse mosquitoes than West Park, or Highland Park. With that knowledge, it did affect my rating, the park district could do something about the pools of gross standing water there, but don't. So it deserves to be rated as such. Its still a fun park, but you almost must have bug spray to enjoy it. Just like Community Park, with its infamous 'tar pit" (gross water hole behind the basket on 15) those places are breeding grounds for mosquitoes, so they're always worse at that course.

When its always an issue, rate it. If the baskets were broken or stolen, would you lower the rating? Probably not, but if I came back a year later, and the same baskets were gone, I would.

its funny you mention community park...since it was a review of that course that sparked this debate lol

 

[garublador]

and estimate very well how it plays under normal conditions.

How can you possibly know what "normal" conditions are if you only play the course once?

If you're a regular at a course then you'll know and can factor that into your rating. If it's a one time deal then the current state of the course (note: weather conditions are not a state of the course) is the only thing you can use to formulate a review. Like it or not, the buggyness of a course is a course maintenance issue. It's a course feature. The weather is not a course feature. It's a feature of the region.

Think of it this way, should I rate a course where the fairways are well maintained lower just because there might be a time when they're not kept up well? Why would that make more sense than giving a course a higher review just because there might be a time when the state of the fairways is better?

 

[tallpaul]

People should use more common sense. Most of the things discussed here would mean that the only five star course would be on an island in Jamaica. Unfortunately, the air fare and the cost of the land would then require you to pay ball ball golf fees to play the thing. This is another of those be careful what you wish for situations. I've seen reviews lately that have down graded not only for bugs; but for wet conditions, when in the midwest, this is one of the rainiest years ever. I wouldn't down grade a southern course for heat; I would simply choose to go in the spring (which I do). I've also seen some down gradings for lack of maintenance up at High Bridge; which again falls into the rainiest years ever comment; along with the fact that there are 5+ nearly all championship level courses; that still manage to cater to all levels of players; maintained primarily by one guy. How often do you cut your lawn at your house? Multiply that times 1,000; add in the rainy year; and ARE YOU SERIOUSLY DOWNGRADING THIS COURSE/COMPLEX for this? And...using a single 18 hole course as your comparison. The number of courses on the property is cause for a +1 disc rating all by itself....
I actually hate to bring High Bridge into this conversation; seems like HBB; but, this just happens to be the specific example I thought of; for the specific reasons noted....
If bugs are a specific problem of a specific course, on a regular basis; then it should be noted and even deducted from the rating. But, for those of us playing a course once; it can be noted in review; but should be put aside in regards to rating; unless you've spoken with locals about the overall situation.

 

[1eyedjack]

Nobody is taking into account that some courses, like Community Park are built on wetland preserves. Marshes, ponds, and creeks are part of the design. This land is meant to be habitat for animals, insects, and fauna. It has been landscaped, drained, and contained by Frank Grimes and the Channahon park district so that we get the pleasure of chucking our disc in the great outdoors. Bugs are part of that habitat, you're not.:doh:

 

[REDARMY]

no.

wear some bugspray for god's sake.

if your a chemical-phobe, buy a couple of those OFF Clip-On doodads and man up, Nancy.

 

[NDABRUSH]

Docking a course for having insects is kinda of silly. Now if there is a drainage problem that could be fixed, then maybe. I would just mention it for other golfers that might be bothered more than I. Being from Louisiana, I am kind of used to it. I don't take off of heavily wooded courses for Ivy because I don't expect some guy to run around in the woods killing all of the Ivy, especially when the course is FREE. That is what the local group could do as a group.