Bad/Homer Course Reviews

[davetherocketguy]

Guess we will give it a shot!

Also, for those who review regularly, do you only rate on DGCR or do you add your ratings to UDisc, too?

And it is definitely a rubric

Call me lazy but I am only going to write one review per course and that's going to be DGCR simply because that is what I am used to. I have yet to pay any attention to the UDisc ratings as of yet since I just started using it...maybe I will now.

 

[jmdaire27]

Homemade baskets that can only be holed from a 90° arc are poor. Tone poles made from 3 one-pound coffee cans are poor. Suspended hulahoops are poor. 50-gallon plastic barrels are poor. Bullseye targets painted on plywood are poor.

Relative to these, Mach 3s don't qualify as poor. Your rubric doesn't cover all the bases.

Hey, 'tis true. I should say this is my first stab at putting one together. I'd like to be comprehensive and consistent! Thanks for the catch.

I have played on a course (years ago) with homemade baskets. They are neat.... but, even some of the spacing in the basket would allow a disc to sneak through.... ha

 

[DavidSauls]

Among the challenges:

* Deciding the relative value of each aspect. How much more important is, say, number of holes than quality of teepads.

* Assigning a scale for the attributes of each, particularly very subjective things like hole design.

* The trouble involved, when a subjective rating---how much more or less you like the course, compared to others you've played---is much simpler.

* Finding a use for it, once done. It's doubtful anyone else will care, as their values of the preceding items will be quite different. For yourself, you may find the value of a course is more or less than the sum of its parts; you may like a course more than another, even if it comes out lower in your mathematical ratings. What then?

 

[Three Putt]

Maybe the most relevant thread near the top:

Has anyone tried standardizing (i.e. assign a point system) course rating? I'm new to course rating, but it is something I'd like to get into. With that, giving a course an arbitrary number rating seems short-sighted. So, I've come up with some categories (teepads, baskets, hole design, course design, etc; some are weighted higher than others), with a few options each (obviously high to low point options). Just curious on peoples takes!

So, for me, I really find value in teepads. Having a solid teepad for your first shot on any hole is important (first impressions matter!). Also, hole variability, use of land, and basket types are important, IMO.

Anywho, just curious!

I tried once, but after I put all the stuff down and thought I had a pretty good system I used it to score the best course I ever played. The best course I ever played scored below average. Out the window it went; welcome back subjective ratings.

BTW, the best course I ever played was Ozark Mountain and it would also score horribly using your rubric. IMO disc golf course design is more of an art than a science. I can't tell you what a great disc golf course is, but I know it when I play it. At its best it hits you on an emotional level and brings you joy, and joy is personal. So for me if a course at some point makes me stop, look around, reflect and remember it's great to be alive, I don't really care if the tees are natural and the signs suck.

That's just me, though. It's my defense of my very personal "by the seat of my pants" DGCR rating criteria.

 

[pmay5]

How has nobody posted the back-to-back troll reviews for Walnut Hill in Columbus, OH? They really look as if they were written by the same person. From 2015 until April 2020, 13 reviews ranging in ratings from 1.5 to 4.0, then within 10 minutes a 0 and a 5.0. Hmmmm.

From TywinL:
Pros: Nothing. Well, maybe pulling the baskets will be permeant. That would be an improvement.
Cons: Course is in the Ghetto and run by Nazis. My car was broken into by meth heads while playing here last year and now the people who run the course have pulled the baskets.
Other Thoughts: Brilliant idea. Close down and outdoor activity that actually allows separation while the state allows real golf courses, mountain bike trails and other outdoor activities to stay open (as they should!). From the bottom of my heart F@#K the Flyers.

From Chain Clanger:
Pros: If you're looking to learn how to control long drives and really get some practice on your up game up, this is the course.
Cons: This course is controlled by the Columbus Flyers, so it is prone to their dictatorship. Hence why there are no baskets at this time. although there really isn't much better of a social distancing sport, you have people that have control issues who like to put their two cents in and ruin it for everyone else.

Looks like the Moderators stepped in, the pissing contest that was Walnut Hill reviews from yesterday have been removed. :clap: :hfive:
Thanks for collecting these DGC, they can be the poster children for this thread! :wall:

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Looks like the Moderators stepped in, the pissing contest that was Walnut Hill reviews from yesterday have been removed. :clap: :hfive:
Thanks for collecting these DGC, they can be the poster children for this thread! :wall:

It's reviews like these that are the reason I've given so many negative votes.

 

[jmdaire27]

I tried once, but after I put all the stuff down and thought I had a pretty good system I used it to score the best course I ever played. The best course I ever played scored below average. Out the window it went; welcome back subjective ratings.

BTW, the best course I ever played was Ozark Mountain and it would also score horribly using your rubric. IMO disc golf course design is more of an art than a science. I can't tell you what a great disc golf course is, but I know it when I play it. At its best it hits you on an emotional level and brings you joy, and joy is personal. So for me if a course at some point makes me stop, look around, reflect and remember it's great to be alive, I don't really care if the tees are natural and the signs suck.

That's just me, though. It's my defense of my very personal "by the seat of my pants" DGCR rating criteria.

I get that! And, TBH, if I'm going to go play a course, reviews aren't going to steer me away. I will try any course once and let my own opinions tell me if it's worth trying again or not. With that, I just feel ratings should be objective, and let subjective thoughts be a caveat.

I am not saying there is a right or wrong way, just my opinion! And, even with a rubric, there can still be some subjectivity

I'll stop derailing. Just didn't want to start a new thread. Cheers!

 

[dreadlock86]

Looks like the Moderators stepped in, the pissing contest that was Walnut Hill reviews from yesterday have been removed. :clap: :hfive:
Thanks for collecting these DGC, they can be the poster children for this thread! :wall:

yeah i reported those, it was pretty clear they were not about reviewing the courses. i don't know why it didn't occur to me to mention them here first. thanks to Craig for immortalizing them.

 

[ohtobediscing]

Homemade baskets that can only be holed from a 90° arc are poor. Tone poles made from 3 one-pound coffee cans are poor. Suspended hulahoops are poor. 50-gallon plastic barrels are poor. Bullseye targets painted on plywood are poor.

Relative to these, Mach 3s don't qualify as poor. Your rubric doesn't cover all the bases.

Hey, 'tis true. I should say this is my first stab at putting one together. I'd like to be comprehensive and consistent! Thanks for the catch.

I have played on a course (years ago) with homemade baskets. They are neat.... but, even some of the spacing in the basket would allow a disc to sneak through.... ha

The homemade baskets I'm referencing are from Lake Stevens WA---incredibly well-made baskets, 30 years old, but directionally challenged. I aced the coffee-can tone pole from 315 ft.---kinda disappointing, though. :|

 

[TAFL]

The homemade baskets I'm referencing are from Lake Stevens WA---incredibly well-made baskets, 30 years old, but directionally challenged. I aced the coffee-can tone pole from 315 ft.---kinda disappointing, though. :|

The directionality of those targets is a feature, not a bug. The good Dr who built them did so to play with finding ways to increase the challenge on disc golf holes. I just watched a video yesterday (recorded this year) that had course designers talking about building a mound with bunkers to make disc golf greens more challenging and how that should be the wave of the future--and immediately thought they're way behind the Lake Stevens course.

Directionality of baskets and bunkers and other obstacles or hazards on greens work to make players choose landing zones more carefully and require more finesse on the approach.

 

[jeffmonty]

Funny thing about those Lake Stevens baskets. Traveling players and others playing there for the first time hate them. The locals absolutely love 'em. I believe they've had plenty of opportunities to swap them out with conventional baskets but they just don't want to, they like them just as they are. I don't know of another course that has these, so they do have a unique one-of-a-kind thing going, far as I know.

The basket in the pic is just one of the different variations. Many of them have completely different chain configurations, so you really need to know what side of the basket to land your shot. If you land on the wrong side, you could be 3 feet away and have no possible way to make the putt.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Funny thing about those Lake Stevens baskets. Traveling players and others playing there for the first time hate them. The locals absolutely love 'em. I believe they've had plenty of opportunities to swap them out with conventional baskets but they just don't want to, they like them just as they are. I don't know of another course that has these, so they do have a unique one-of-a-kind thing going, far as I know.

The basket in the pic is just one of the different variations. Many of them have completely different chain configurations, so you really need to know what side of the basket to land your shot. If you land on the wrong side, you could be 3 feet away and have no possible way to make the putt.

I would say the directionality of the baskets necessarily makes it a more advanced course... definitely the sort of thing you need to consider and develop a feel for as far as your approach playing the hole.

The underline makes perfectly good sense to me. I can totally see this course having a much higher fun factor on subsequent rounds. Not sure I can say how much I'd like them if I hit that course during a road trip.

Therein lies the value of looking past the rating itself, and actually reading reviews, and considering the authors' perspective
I can totally see this course having a much larger ratings disparity between roadtrippers and locals, than most.

 

[wolfhaley]

I think those would be fun to play on. They're unique, that's for sure. Even on, actually especially on, a road trip. It's like the cones in Minneapolis, they catch worth a crap, but boy were they fun to play a round on. You're putting better be on point for the cones. These your upshot needs to be placed just right.

 

[brutalbrutus]

If you land on the wrong side, you could be 3 feet away and have no possible way to make the putt.

How big are those baskets in the pic? Couldn't you just hold your putter vertical and slip it by the pole when on the wrong side?

 

[jeffmonty]

How big are those baskets in the pic? Couldn't you just hold your putter vertical and slip it by the pole when on the wrong side?

They're more or less the same size as a regular basket. Only if you're close enough to reach around or over you could drop it in on some of them for sure. The course is pretty short and heavily wooded so these baskets make what would be a pretty easy course much more interesting.

You taking a break from the politics forum, lol?

 

[brutalbrutus]

You taking a break from the politics forum, lol?

I'm not prejudiced, I enjoy all the forums...




… can't you tell from my inflated post count?

 

[Noill]

I don't like them...

I've never played there, but these would be annoying I think. Could be wrong

 

[wolfhaley]

They're not annoying, they're "unique"

 

[brutalbrutus]

Coming from a golf background I can see the appeal of them. Having different greens on every hole is just a given on most golf courses. In DG for the most part, the greens are pretty standard. You might have some water or elevation in play here or there and maybe some trees/shrubs to deal with but for the most part, you don't really have to think about where your disc lands in relation to the basket as much as you do in golf. Its more about just getting it inside the circle(or whatever your comfort zone is). Windy days being the main exception.

It would suck having them on a course like Idlewild, there's enough there to deal with as is, but I think it would be cool to have them on a shorter woody course or a medium length open/park style course.

 

[ohtobediscing]

The directionality of those targets is a feature, not a bug. The good Dr who built them did so to play with finding ways to increase the challenge on disc golf holes. I just watched a video yesterday (recorded this year) that had course designers talking about building a mound with bunkers to make disc golf greens more challenging and how that should be the wave of the future--and immediately thought they're way behind the Lake Stevens course.

Directionality of baskets and bunkers and other obstacles or hazards on greens work to make players choose landing zones more carefully and require more finesse on the approach.

I am completely aware of the intentional design. However, to be within 6 ft. of the basket on your drive and yet have no chance to birdie doesn't really make for fun nor fair golf. Not that I didn't enjoy the course as a whole---I would gladly rate it as 3.75-4 discs, reaĺly liked the rainforest ruggedness of the course.