• 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)

Reviewing 9ers vs 18ers

Eighteen holes seem to be and are traditionally the de facto number to complete an official "round". Playing any number of holes more or less than 18 seems "slightly off" from an official round and more like a disc golf experience round. Playing 9 holes then seems like half an official round. Play it twice from the same tees to the same baskets and you played two half-rounds, not the equivalent of an official 18-hole round.

Play a traditional niner once from the long tee and once from the short tee on a layout where the short tee is primarily in front of and on the same line as the back tee and it likely feels like a weak and repetitive 18-hole round. Play a 9-hole course where the alternate tee on each hole has been designed to be significantly different from the other tee/fairway, the course should feel like it produces a bona fide 18-hole round but perhaps somewhat less fulfilling than 18 separate holes. Play a 9-hole layout that has two tees and two baskets on every hole, and it seems like it should be rated like an actual 18-hole course.

With regard to 27-hole layouts, I agree they can attract more players who must drive some distance to play there. However, especially for pay-to-play owners with 27s, I recommend they turn a 9-hole section into the equivalent of 18 holes by adding 9 unique route alternate tees and/or baskets so they can honestly advertise two 18-hole courses.

Just because DGCR and UDisc do not recognize 9s with dual unique tees and/or baskets as 18s doesn't mean players don't enjoy them that way. We have several active shotgun and flex start leagues that play full 18s or 20s on our 9 and 10-hole courses like this. DGCR and UDisc reviewers tend to evaluate courses based on their high-level tournament potential resulting in the number of holes from the longest or only tee being more heavily weighted without adding much for alternate tees and/or baskets.

For example, I'm not sure we have any Red or White level courses rated 4.5-5 that challenge that level of player just as well as a 4.5-5 rated Blue or Gold level course. For those who have played Highbridge, the Woodland Greens, white level course is the most played and as popular as Blueberry Hill (blue level). However, I don't recall reviewers rating Woodland equal to or higher than any of the other four higher skill level courses even though they serve a much smaller and narrower skill player group.
 
You reference examples of what I'd call "course expansion done right." I applaud adding holes that don't duplicate what a course already has. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

I'm sure many of us have seen courses where holes were added "just because we can," rather than introducing new shots or incorporating design elements absent from the original layout.

I'm sure the latter is true, but it hasn't been true in my area.

(Though I can think of some "just because we can" additional tees or basket locations, that were added to existing courses0.
 
i think Lake Chabot is a legit 4.0

two tees on each hole with significantly different looks, two permanent baskets on every hole, five pin positions on each hole, significant elevation in play, amazing views, clubhouse, and most importantly... fun shots

it's a great example of what a 9 hole course could be. CCDG has some tourney vids of the course if anyone wants to get a look


parque de la raza is also a fun course and i think it's pretty appropriately rated; i gave it 3.5
 
I haven't checked to see what the reviews here say but there is a nine hole course that I occasionally play (Interlocken) that has three different tees for each basket. Most of the holes play pretty different from each tee. It's pretty much a "beginner friendly pitch and putt" because of the short distances but if you play through the regular tees, the "A" tees, and the "B" tees you get a reasonable variety of holes and shots.

Here's hole 7 to see what I mean. I put an X roughly where the basket is and marked the three tees as 7, 7A, and 7B.

6ee8b8b581c6bf1cec2f21f56bb5776a.jpg
 
I wish courses were rated amongst their course peers.

Some courses are 9 hole courses for scout troops. Declare as beginner course rate it as such. Not fair to give it one star because you as an experienced player can easily birdie all holes. Does the course do the job for skill level intended?

Some courses are trying to be champion courses rate it amongst it peers. Does it hold up to those standards.

Few courses can be everything for every player.

One gray area in my mind is a designer who takes a very difficult property and puts in an enjoyable course. Designer should be complimented in the comments on efforts but other courses with awesome property should always be higher rated. Even if anyone could design a course on the superior property.
 
One gray area in my mind is a designer who takes a very difficult property and puts in an enjoyable course. Designer should be complimented in the comments on efforts but other courses with awesome property should always be higher rated. Even if anyone could design a course on the superior property.

Don't forget about those awesome properties that could be great courses but some hack course designer put in a sub par course. I'd rate that lower than a well executed course on a less than stellar property.
 
I try to evaluate each course on it's own merits.

A great design on interesting property isn't necessarily better (or worse) than a lousy design on great property.

Recognize what's good as a pro, what's weak as a con, and figure out how much you like the course for what it is when you play it.
 
I wish courses were rated amongst their course peers.

Some courses are 9 hole courses for scout troops. Declare as beginner course rate it as such. Not fair to give it one star because you as an experienced player can easily birdie all holes. Does the course do the job for skill level intended?

Some courses are trying to be champion courses rate it amongst it peers. Does it hold up to those standards.

Few courses can be everything for every player.

One gray area in my mind is a designer who takes a very difficult property and puts in an enjoyable course. Designer should be complimented in the comments on efforts but other courses with awesome property should always be higher rated. Even if anyone could design a course on the superior property.

I don't worry about being fair to a course. I worry about being fair to a reader, who may considering playing the course.

It's an extension of a visitor asking me what nearby course is best to play. But in writing the review, I don't know if the audience is 7 years old, or only has 20 minutes to play at lunch, or is actually looking for a challenge. But I surmise that the bulk of readers on DGCR have some experience and skills, and tailor my advice accordingly.
 
I wish courses were rated amongst their course peers.

Some courses are 9 hole courses for scout troops. Declare as beginner course rate it as such. Not fair to give it one star because you as an experienced player can easily birdie all holes. Does the course do the job for skill level intended?

Some courses are trying to be champion courses rate it amongst it peers. Does it hold up to those standards.

Few courses can be everything for every player.

One gray area in my mind is a designer who takes a very difficult property and puts in an enjoyable course. Designer should be complimented in the comments on efforts but other courses with awesome property should always be higher rated. Even if anyone could design a course on the superior property.

There's already a website where you can rate every course a 5.0. It's called UDisc.
 
I wish courses were rated amongst their course peers.

Some courses are 9 hole courses for scout troops. Declare as beginner course rate it as such. Not fair to give it one star because you as an experienced player can easily birdie all holes. Does the course do the job for skill level intended?

Some courses are trying to be champion courses rate it amongst it peers. Does it hold up to those standards.

Few courses can be everything for every player.

One gray area in my mind is a designer who takes a very difficult property and puts in an enjoyable course. Designer should be complimented in the comments on efforts but other courses with awesome property should always be higher rated. Even if anyone could design a course on the superior property.


I've thought about this same thing for a while. Playing a little 9 hole pitch n putt, maybe at a school, should not be rated as high as a really good 18 hole championship level course, no matter how well that 9er is done. They just don't compare when comparing all factors.

However, that does not mean that 9er is a bad course, it may have good baskets, tee pads, tee signs, but only challenges the lower skill levels.

The only suggestion I have to more accurately rate a well-done, but not highly challenging course, is to have a "Category" rating. An overall rating and a Category rating for each course. The categories could be broad such as: Beginner/Family, Park/Everyday, Championship. Of course, there would be never ending discussions about which category a course fits in, should 9ers and 18+ courses be in the same category or separate, what about this xxx new category. So, it would probably just add to more headaches.

I've felt several times that I would like to rate a well done beginner course as a 5 in its category, because its the Best of the Best of those. However that would be dead wrong in rating it versus all courses.
 
Yeah, categories would be great, and would never work. I can't even decide on how I'd categorize some courses, myself; or, for that matter, lightly wooded vs. moderately wooded, or what moderately hilly means, on a course that has a mix of terrains.

But --

A user looking for the best beginner course, can sort by distance/number of holes/terrain, and get a general idea. My state shows about a dozen courses under 3000', rated 3.0. That seems to be the ceiling, but tells you that they're the best of that category.
 
Yeah, categories would be great, and would never work. I can't even decide on how I'd categorize some courses, myself; or, for that matter, lightly wooded vs. moderately wooded, or what moderately hilly means, on a course that has a mix of terrains.

But --

A user looking for the best beginner course, can sort by distance/number of holes/terrain, and get a general idea. My state shows about a dozen courses under 3000', rated 3.0. That seems to be the ceiling, but tells you that they're the best of that category.

I agree David, great to have, tough to work.

If even half the Users where as adapt at searching on here as you are (can you even do that on that other App?), then we would never have any of the "Going to xxx, what are the best courses?" forum threads. :D
 
Typically when reviewing a 9 (or even a 12) hole course, I try to imagine the course as if it were a full 18 hole course, of the same quality, without repetition, and then subtract 1.0 from my rating.

On the flip side, there has been at least one 18 hole course I've played where I actively realized I would rate 9 of the holes higher if the course were two separate 9 hole courses because the original 9 holes were that bad.
 
front 9 of northwood black is perfection

if it was just that (and of course then made the walk back to parking lot from hole 9 a bit shorter) i would feel comfortable giving out a 5/5 even tho its just 9
 
categories for courses are something that good reviewers have already starting doing on their own. most honest reviews say as much when reviewing a school 9, "great for what it is, perfect beginner course, 5/5 for kids", etc but still end up rating it a 2

i appreciate when reviewers who are experienced golfers give their evaluation of the level of the course using red, white, blue, gold labels.
 
Top