Bad/Homer Course Reviews

[HyooMac]

Just noticed that MOST of the 9-word review was word for word from this old review that was magically updated today:

Pros: pure magic. a true links course. variety of elevation challenges. water interwoven on many holes. easy to navigate. course signs were spot on. great for practicing a wide variety of shots with all discs in the bag. very challenging for all skill levels.
Cons: nothing. when your average DGCR score is 60 on a par 54/57, you know the course is doing something right.
Other Thoughts: open your eyes, this is a great overall course to spend time with the wife and family. since it is not as intimidating as the animal course, they enjoyed playing the occasional hole, as well as the scenic walk through the dense woods.

Magically updated 11 years after the initial review - with no indication of anything actually updated except the words.

{Bump}

 

[timg]

It's the same user that posted that 4 word review, different account.

 

[ejvogie]

It's the same user that posted that 4 word review, different account.

opcorn:

 

[nothinbuttree]

It's the same user that posted that 4 word review, different account.

Reviews should have more words than the name of this site...

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Apparently our favorite reviewer is back. According to his profile page, Redneck Machismo logged on here on June 10th. I thought he had moved on from the site entirely. We can only hope he's getting ready to write a new review.

 

[GMcAtee]

Apparently our favorite reviewer is back. According to his profile page, Redneck Machismo logged on here on June 10th. I thought he had moved on from the site entirely. We can only hope he's getting ready to write a new review.

I had to start following this reviewer. Awesome name!

 

[Tyler V]

I had to start following this reviewer. Awesome name!

It's really up there as being one of the best usernames I have seen on any platform.

 

[DeanMoriarty]

Apparently our favorite reviewer is back. According to his profile page, Redneck Machismo logged on here on June 10th. I thought he had moved on from the site entirely. We can only hope he's getting ready to write a new review.

I googled his username + DGCR and clicked on the thread about his review of the course in Paw Paw. Luckily, it's still there and it is by far one of the best reviews I have ever read in my entire life.

I mean, the guy got into a car chase with the owner of that course all for the sake of the review. That's dedication!

 

[lee76007]

^^^^^ That is the hardest I laughed on any review. It sounded like something that could happen in a liberty port, when I wasn't punching holes in the ocean.

 

[Pevio]

I gave my first 0.0 rating, and while it may sound like I just hate the course and that review fits the title of this thread, there are actual reasons. So please, if you see this review on the front page and think I'm an idiot for giving a legit course such a low rating, give it the light of day.

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=919&page=1&sort=date_desc&mode=rev#90531

 

[dreadlock86]

not really a fan of this kind of review. it's more about an agenda. you might not think the layout should "exist" but it does and i'm certain you wouldn't call it a 0.0 if the other layouts weren't there.

it would make sense to RIP the central layout with the newer east and west layouts in place. but that also doesn't really seem to make the most sense until those layouts have signage. and even after that point, the central layout may still merit official status as i'm sure it still serves some group of players.

if it were my local, i'd probably lobby to keep the central layout signs and add additional ones for the east and west layouts. brand the central layout as the beginner course and the others as intermediate. probably up the par for the signage on the central layout holes that are 400+

i guess all that also depends on how many people regularly the play park and how many play the "original" course. if a lot of people play often, the extra layout may clog things up but i kinda doubt that's the case.

 

[wolfhaley]

not really a fan of this kind of review. it's more about an agenda. you might not think the layout should "exist" but it does and i'm certain you wouldn't call it a 0.0 if the other layouts weren't there.

it would make sense to RIP the central layout with the newer east and west layouts in place. but that also doesn't really seem to make the most sense until those layouts have signage. and even after that point, the central layout may still merit official status as i'm sure it still serves some group of players.

if it were my local, i'd probably lobby to keep the central layout signs and add additional ones for the east and west layouts. brand the central layout as the beginner course and the others as intermediate. probably up the par for the signage on the central layout holes that are 400+

i guess all that also depends on how many people regularly the play park and how many play the "original" course. if a lot of people play often, the extra layout may clog things up but i kinda doubt that's the case.

I didn't vote either way not being local, seems like an odd situation regardless. Never encountered something like this. A zero is very harsh though. I'm stingy with 5's but probably moreso with 0's.

I'll give them the benefit of doubt though.

 

[dreadlock86]

I'm stingy with 5's but probably moreso with 0's.

agreed. i've only ever given one but it was my first review and a very poor course. i might have edited it to a 0.5 at some point if the course wasn't long extinct.

 

[wellsbranch250]

KP, I haven't played the course, but a zero rating seems to be far too punitive for layout grievances. I have played a course that did something similar in Jacksonville FL. I noted my displeasure of the reuse of holes and resulting navigational issues and ultimately dropped a 2.0 on it. I have given 4 zero ratings and two of these were practice areas. Of the other 2, one was a 5 basket course literally in a parking lot. The other had trees growing threw 5 of the 9 basket cages. On paper the course in question looks like a 2.5.

 

[autocrosscrx]

I think it would need to not have baskets for me to give it a 0.0 rating.

 

[ru4por]

Seems akin to giving a 9 hole course a zero......because you are not a fan of 9 holers.

 

[chevis]

I think it would need to not have baskets for me to give it a 0.0 rating.

this.
my lowest rating is .5 for a practice area with 2 baskets.
i think it would have to be a bad sub 9 object course for my 0 to come out.

 

[blake833]

For me, a zero rating comes from there not being any course whatsoever (essentially, nothing to rate = nothing as a score). I've only ever given one, and it was because it was really just a bunch of baskets scattered in a field prone to flooding, and abutting/overlapping soccer fields and walking paths. If there is anything there to be called a course, then at least a .5, and work up from there based on how effective it is at being a course. Tee pads? signs? those might be Passable to Typical. Any type of effort at hole sequencing with throwing areas, even if done Poorly, I would say is higher than a 0.

 

[glassila]

If I had to guess what rating you gave it based on reading the review, I would have guessed 2.5 or 3.0.
There is no way the review justifies a zero.

 

[elmexdela]

to me 0 means "worst of the worst"

dgcr doesnt like to use the full scale