Reviewing 9ers vs 18ers

[itsRudy]

When I sort my own reviews by rating, I notice the bottom half is almost exclusively 9ers and the upper half are mostly 18ers 2.5 stars and up. There is a bit of overlap and exceptions but not much. I'm afraid it's leading me to unconsciously grade inflate the 18ers, especially as I get out more and more.

Back when I began in my area, 9ers were the rule rather the exception and it slowly has flipped. Part of that is a number of good 9ers turned into 18ers. And the worst niners died off and went extinct. And nearly everything that is opening up in the immediate area starts as an 18er off the bat in the meantime.

It's leading me to rate good 9ers up to 2.5 stars max but also the crappiest 18ers starting at 2.5. Don't know if that's right. Would giving an 18er just a single 1-star advantage for the extra effort be fairer, all things considered?

 

[dreadlock86]

i don't think so. i don't think more holes necessarily makes a better course.

better land (plus a smart designer) makes better holes makes a better course. i'd rather play 12 holes on interesting topography than 18 where the first six are in an open field before getting to the good stuff. i'd also rather play 12 good holes on that land than 18 decent holes on the same piece of land.

9ers often suck and rate low because they tend to be on small plots of land that don't have interesting topography or many obstacles. but i've also played 9ers on really cool pieces of land that make for great rounds. i'm not going to knock a fun, well-designed course on a great piece of land just because there wasn't enough space to cram in 18 holes. and conversely, 18 holes aren't getting an extra points from me just for hitting a magic number. i see the rating as the intersection of land quality versus design decisions.

 

[autocrosscrx]

One big problem with 9 hole courses is that they are often virtually unplayable with crowds. There is a 9 hole course very close to me that I really enjoy, but I don't even try to play unless I can go on a weekday morning or it is like 8 AM on a Sunday and rainy.

 

[DavidSauls]

Mental exercise: Think of an 18-hole course, and imagine the front-9 or back-9 were taken away. Would it be diminished in value, or just as good?

All things being equal, the 18-holer is going to be a better course, just because it has the chance to offer more variety of shots, and more play for the visit.

But that's not absolute. I've played 18-hole courses that I'd rate below 2.5, and 9-holers I'd rate above them. And of course I've played 18s that were squeezed into the wrong property, and would have been better if they were re-designed into 9s or 12s.

All of which speaks to potential quality. In reality, a lot of 9-hole courses are beginners' courses or uninspired designs on inadequate pieces of land, just to have a course there.

 

[HyooMac]

One of my pleasures as a bagger is finding a 9 that exceeds the "normal" expectations. I have a fair amount of crossover in my mid 3's, and even a few nines that I've rated 3.5.

Random thoughts:

The nines that I've rated highest almost always have great upkeep, beautiful locations and excellent fixtures (there's something more than just nine very good golf holes)

A few of my top rated nines have second sets of tees that really make them close to being 18's - you can play the alternate tees and not see them same shot, just longer

It's always interesting when I'm rating a nine to see it being stacked above 18's - but there are dull 18's out there that are less fun to play than very good 9's.

 

[dreadlock86]

i've rated two 9ers a 4.0 so far: Lake Chabot in Oakland, CA has multiple tees and 2 permanent baskets with alternate positions on every (IIRC) hole and Iron Spike in Palestine, TX has 3 pads per hole and...

dang, i just looked it up to see if they have multiple pin positions and i see that Iron Spike just became an 18 hole course this year. i'm sure they totally ruined it, what a bummer.

One big problem with 9 hole courses is that they are often virtually unplayable with crowds. There is a 9 hole course very close to me that I really enjoy, but I don't even try to play unless I can go on a weekday morning or it is like 8 AM on a Sunday and rainy.

that's a rare problem and you must be lucky to have a decent 9 nearby. in my experience, these courses are way more likely to be devoid of golfers 90% of the time. of course, it depends on the area and whether there are even any 18s or better options available.

 

[DavidSauls]

A few of my top rated nines have second sets of tees that really make them close to being 18's - you can play the alternate tees and not see them same shot, just longer
.

True. Perhaps the best 9-holer I've played, fell in this category. (It's since been expanded to 18). It was a long time ago but were I to review it, from hazy memory, it might be a 3.0.

 

[ray1970]

I'm kind of a "fun factor" kind of a guy.

I've played a few nine hole courses that were very well done and used the land available to make an excellent course regardless of the number of holes.

I've also probably played more than a few eighteen holers that just weren't good. Poorly designed, didn't really use the land/topography that was available in an effective manner, etc.

I would never have some sort of rating cutoff in either direction for a course based solely off the number of holes.

 

[DavidSauls]

I wouldn't have a minimum rating cutoff, for either.

I can't imagine rating a 9-hole course higher than 4.0. Barring something crazy cool, like being in an abandoned theme park. I just think of the courses I consider 4.5s or 5.0s; at best, the 9-holer would have holes as great as those courses, but still have fewer of them.

 

[txmxer]

I've not played a 9 hole so far, but if I did I think I'd probably consider that in rating the course. If there is a perfect 5.0 18 hole course, then how can a 9 hole course be it's equal?

 

[HyooMac]

I've not played a 9 hole so far, but if I did I think I'd probably consider that in rating the course. If there is a perfect 5.0 18 hole course, then how can a 9 hole course be it's equal?

I recently got a complaint about one of my reviews of a 9 from the designer. I sent him a note complimenting him on the layout, and he asked why I didn't rate it a 5.0. Hell, I thought my review was pretty positive...but it's just a nine in a park



https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=13497&mode=rev

 

[txmxer]

I recently got a complaint about one of my reviews of a 9 from the designer. I sent him a note complimenting him on the layout, and he asked why I didn't rate it a 5.0. Hell, I thought my review was pretty positive...but it's just a nine in a park



https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=13497&mode=rev

Sounds like it is well designed and solid effort on turf tees. Maybe you should add cons? Holes 10-18 are unplayable. NM that they don't exist.

The rating is kind of an unfortunate deal. I can see how courses might be overlooked because of it. I mean if I'm shopping online I don't buy 1-2 or even 3 star items if there are 4-5 star options.

I still read reviews to validate the ratings, but I probably won't bother if an item is low rated by numerous reviewers.

What I'm saying is we've been trained based on shopping experience to give too much weight to the rating.

 

[Monocacy]

Maybe you should add cons? Holes 10-18 are unplayable.

Hahaha :clap:

The rating is kind of an unfortunate deal. I can see how courses might be overlooked because of it. I mean if I'm shopping online I don't buy 1-2 or even 3 star items if there are 4-5 star options.

I get what you are saying, but 9-hole courses rated 3.0 or above are often VERY fun to play. I actively seek them out on road trips when I want to break up a long drive.

 

[DFrah]

i don't think so. i don't think more holes necessarily makes a better course.

better land (plus a smart designer) makes better holes makes a better course. i'd rather play 12 holes on interesting topography than 18 where the first six are in an open field before getting to the good stuff. i'd also rather play 12 good holes on that land than 18 decent holes on the same piece of land.

9ers often suck and rate low because they tend to be on small plots of land that don't have interesting topography or many obstacles. but i've also played 9ers on really cool pieces of land that make for great rounds. i'm not going to knock a fun, well-designed course on a great piece of land just because there wasn't enough space to cram in 18 holes. and conversely, 18 holes aren't getting an extra points from me just for hitting a magic number. i see the rating as the intersection of land quality versus design decisions.

Agree 100% with this. For me, it also helps that many local DG'ers don't seem to agree with it. Meaning, there are certain 18-holers around here that aren't very good - but if I want to visit those courses on a weekend or even a weekday after work with decent weather, I know I will be spending a lot of time waiting for groups in front of me.

There are several 9-holers around here that are fun, and I often choose to visit one of those instead and play it 2-3 times. It takes the same amount of time it would have taken me to play an 18-holer with all the waiting, plus I often get the 9-holer to myself.

I guess none of that is strictly on topic. But in short yeah - I don't think 9-holers are inherently worse, but they are often - not always - installed in areas that equate to worse disc golf ratings.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Discussions like these are why I advocate for 27-hole courses.

 

[Shadrach3]

All things being equal, the 18-holer is going to be a better course, just because it has the chance to offer more variety of shots, and more play for the visit.

But that's not absolute. I've played 18-hole courses that I'd rate below 2.5, and 9-holers I'd rate above them. And of course I've played 18s that were squeezed into the wrong property, and would have been better if they were re-designed into 9s or 12s.

I think this is a great summary. I would think of number of holes like any other design limitation - elevation, availability of trees, water, views, etc. If you don't have one or more of these things, then even the world's best design won't be a Phenomenal or Best of the Best. Doubling the number of holes gives you more chance for variety, just like having varied landscape on the property.

 

[chevis]

more reading on 9vs18 (prerube )
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32791
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115729
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3652
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141670

 

[Steve West]

Every 9 hole course can be played twice in a row. So, it would be fair to rate it as an 18-holer with 9 duplicated holes.

 

[DavidSauls]

It could be rated as a 90-holer, if you have enough time.

 

[Countchunkula]

One big problem with 9 hole courses is that they are often virtually unplayable with crowds. There is a 9 hole course very close to me that I really enjoy, but I don't even try to play unless I can go on a weekday morning or it is like 8 AM on a Sunday and rainy.

That's not exclusive to 9ers. There's a 27 hole course near me with the same problem. By 10 am on a weekend, there's a group on virtually every hole and a couple groups waiting to tee off on hole 1.

It's probably my favorite course in the area, but I haven't played it in a couple of years. I have a few weekdays off coming up, so I may see if I can sneak a round in.