Definition of Wooded (& Hilly) - regional differences

[sidewinder22]

Originally Posted by BionicRib

I think that this is a great idea. Although the definitions of each would need to be clearly defined so people have a better understanding of exactly what each means. Maybe have a handfull of courses put up for debate in different regions of the country (popular courses that a lot of people play, not necessarily high rated courses). That way you may get rid of some of the regional bias when descriptions are added for new courses.

I'm sure this will be widely debated.......but for "hilly" measurements I would suggest having a range of how many holes on the course have an increase or decrease of 10' vs 5' vs 20+ft.......This would be a lot of work, but I think elevation change on a tee sign should be the norm (although I know there are few courses out there that follow this practice). Anyways just some thoughts, but I again having clear definitions will help clear up the bias IMO

I agree with the 1st part.

The problem with the 2nd part, is that going by the hole elevation change doesn't always give a good description when you are playing over valleys or up and overs, and rolling elevation. The change from the tee to basket might say 0', but you might actually play up and down 20' in some cases.

Trying to figure the "Hilly" factor on a course like Jordan Creek would be interesting. The front 9 doesn't get much flatter. The back 9 has 20-50' elevation changes on most holes.

[BionicRib]

Dave 242? What courses in Illinois (northern) are overestimating their woodedness after your research? Are you referring to the ones listed? Summit would be the only course I would have a question about. Its listed as heavily wooded.......I would agree, although I think plinko should be added to the category of woodedness. I know that won't sit well with some of the designers out there, but maybe that will deter holes like that being made.

[sidewinder22]

Originally Posted by timg

I just added extremely hilly to even up the choices. As for evenly wooded, yea, I wasn't too crazy about it either. I'll have to give it some more thought. New013 had a pretty good definition for the wooded stuff IMO.

I agree with those definitions, it's just the "Evenly Wooded" as a title description sounds off.

[BionicRib]

Originally Posted by sidewinder22

The problem with the 2nd part, is that going by the hole elevation change doesn't always give a good description when you are playing over valleys or up and overs, and rolling elevation. The change from the tee to basket might say 0', but you might actually play up and down 20' in some cases.

I think elevation from tee to pin is all that is necessary. That is all you should be concerned with when choosing a shot(depending on the distance of the hole of course). This is why on top of elevation changes, there should be notable distances on the tee sign as well.....ie.....How far to carry the valley? How far to clear the water? How far to layup in front of said valley/water. Having a strong background in ball gold kinda spoils me with these kinds of details not being around in disc golf. How many times have you played a large downhill shot and drastically over/underestimated the distance (even though you threw a good shot). I do see your point though. Maybe there could be two categories of hillyness. One category that covers grading the elevation changes on the holes. And another category that rates how many times (while you are playing) you have to traverse up and down hills. More work I know, but it would be helpful for the faint of heart.

[BogeyNoMore]

Originally Posted by BionicRib

.......I would agree, although I think plinko should be added to the category of woodedness. I know that won't sit well with some of the designers out there, but maybe that will deter holes like that being made.

Don't forget, we're talking about course descriptions, not hole descriptions. While there are many heavily wooded courses, and certainly some plinko, poke-n-pray, can't find any sort of line... holes, how many places have you been where you'd objectively describe the course that way?

Not sure it really serves a purpose adding plinko as an option, I think we're fine with heavily wooded. If you feel that way about a course, just say so in the review. We're simply looking for course classification here - not a substitite for substance in reviews (not that you were necessarily headed there, but there have been threads about expanding selections in that general direction).

[BionicRib]

Maybe plinko is a bit offensive......because a lot of people don't really have a full understanding of what the definition of plinko is. I don't think I've played a course that IMO has been entirely plinko...esk, I referring to courses that have an overwhelming plinko presence.

Im not quite sure I'm on the same page with you about course vs. hole descripions. I would think the more detailed it can get, the better off we are. The holes IMO define a course, but if sticking to a "general" description is what we are going for then would say to make it as detailed as possible because if you don't........the argument will still be there as to how you define a "general" description.......You could have 10 different categories of woodedness........or 100. Neither IMO is going to solve the debate of what puts each course in what category. Without a clearcut definition IMO adding categories is futile.

[BionicRib]

For example.........And I'm trying to think of a course where this is most apparent IMO

If you have a course that is deep in the dense woods that has "fair"ways (lets say average hole length 300ft), I would still call it heavily wooded if you're in the forest the whole time. How would you define a same course where the fairways/lines were all 10ft or less?

Both heavily wooded.......some people like one of the two over the other, but there is a big difference in the types of each one, that IMO gets thrown aside. Sure this is something that somebody who writes a review can definitely cover.......but it will be their opinion.......and that is why I only read a handful of peoples reviews on here. Those who I feel have similar skill level/experience as myself. The general descriptions (categories if you will) don't really do much for me to begin with.

[timg]

Any classification system like this will have some room for interpretation... no different than right now. It'll just make it a little more granular. That said, BogeyNoMore is on the right track with the course thing. This is just to give people a fairly general idea of what to expect.

I could just add a "Open" category for the terrain and a "Flat" option for the landscape and not worry about adding an intermediate category. Those two terms aren't difficult to interpret.

[BogeyNoMore]

If you're looking to add some granularity, open works, and the thought did pop into my mind of adding the extreme of "densely wooded" to describe courses like Summit Park.
That would create a Terrain scale of:
- Open
- Lightly Wooded
- Moderately Wooded
- Heavily Wooded
- Densely Wooded

As for Landscape:
- Flat
- Mostly Flat
- Moderately Hilly
- Very Hilly
- Extremely Hilly

This essentially creates a five point contiuum for both attributes. I thought Extremely Hilly seemed appropriate for courses on Ski Hills and really extreme terrain (Diamond X maybe?) Just my penny's worth (not sure it's worth twice that).

[BogeyNoMore]

Am I the only one who thinks the words Landscape and Terrain are reveresd?
When I think of terrain, I think of topography and elevation changes (e.g. rugged terrain... doesn't have me picturing trees).
When I think of landscape, I think of plants (e.g. the sparsely landscaped or lush landscaping... gives no clue what role gravity plays).

I don't actually believe anyone's getting confused by this - just pointing out that it seems odd to me. Just thinking that if Tim's going to tweak anything, he might be able to fix that if doing so makes sense to most folks.

As has been pointed out (by many), I tend to think too much.