Do you have to play a course to review it?

[glassila]

Let's say you go to a course to watch a tournament (pro or otherwise) and end up walking every hole and watching hundreds of throws.
Would it be acceptable for you to submit a review for that course?
.
.
.
I say "Yes", but I am curious what others think. opcorn:

 

[coupe]

Writing a review after walking a course watching others play but not actually playing it like a eunuch in a harem writing a book about the pleasure of sex: he's seen it done every night but has never done it himself.

 

[GripEnemy]

I was going to agree and say yes, but damn coupe makes a solid point!

Watching people handle firearms and actually doing it yourself is a fair analogy as well.




I still say yes because it's just stupid pieces of plastic over grass and between trees:|

 

[ray1970]

I've seen people knitting. I guess I could write a review on what I thought about the pattern even though I never knit it?

Ok. Probably a bad analogy.

I am opposed to hearing your opinion about a course you've never played but I do see where you're coming from. I get that you've probably played other courses and might know what you did or didn't like about a course just from watching others play it but I'm still sticking with "no".

 

[Cgkdisc]

You can critique certain aspects of the course but not do a qualified DGCR review.

 

[itsRudy]

Writing a review after walking a course watching others play but not actually playing it like a eunuch in a harem writing a book about the pleasure of sex: he's seen it done every night but has never done it himself.

Except we can assume the DG reviewer in this case plays and plays regularly. Otherwise, why bother to review courses?

Hm, should a car reviewer that has driven hundreds of cars but only seen others drive a certain car, that likely isn't special, review it? Idk.

Or is it a special course? A Maple Hill-esque course as seen on youtube? Well, he did walk it.

Such an edge case, I don't think I'll really think too much about it unless OP starts making a hobby of it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Writing a review after walking a course watching others play but not actually playing it like a eunuch in a harem writing a book about the pleasure of sex: he's seen it done every night but has never done it himself.

Of course, eunuchs are cut out for the job...

 

[elmexdela]

walking it i would say yes

just watching it on youtube is a no

i mean were not in a surplus of reviews currently either

however i bet most seasoned reviewers (on here) could get within =/- a half star from just watching videos of a course tho

opcorn:

 

[whitefedora]

My friend Adam just came with justification.

 

[discerdoo]

Can a dude who doesn't submit reviews on DGCR reply to this thread?

I say yes but...

 

[Riverdog]

I think you're all missing the point here. Coupe managed to use the word eunuch in such a way as to not disparage anyone else on this board and get banned in the process. Coupe, I salute you. Brilliant!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dreadlock86]

perhaps a technical answer...

on DGCR you cannot review a course unless you have marked it as played. i wouldn't mark a course as played if i had only walked it. and i wouldn't consider such a review a legitimate one.

there is a really slippery slope here also. i could probably write a convincing review of a course i've never even been to if i read a bunch of other reviews, heard others discussing the course, maybe saw some pics or watched a little footage. particularly for generic courses like a typical park course or an elementary school course. that review might be accurate, helpful, and contain no falsehoods but it would still completely lack any integrity. if we were to accept reviewing a course that had only been walked then why not one you've only seen on video or in pictures or heard described in conversation.


then of course, there's my personal opinion that a good review is one that describes the experience of playing a course which i can't imagine being communicated effectively by someone who hasn't experienced it.

 

[dreadlock86]

devil's advocate...

biscoe made a case for walking a course in another thread. if he did that and wrote a review i wouldn't have a big issue with it and i'm sure i'd find the review helpful. but that's an exception for a person like that whose experience and understanding of course design would make their observations valuable without having made the throws. all that is pretty subjective though. and it still begs the question of whether that is appropriate for DGCR, and i'm still leaning toward a no.

 

[whitefedora]

This shouldn't be a question. The answer is no. I don't care what weird exceptions might be out there. The answer is no. Play the course. Review if you'd like after.

 

[davetherocketguy]

My preference is that every review is after the reviewer has played it. However, I would make an exception for seasoned reviewers who at least walked the course and I really DO NOT want to see reviews from folks who have never actually set foot on the course and are doing a "drive-by." I'd also make an exception for unplayable courses.

 

[Hampstead]

If it was informative and well thought out I'd have no problem accepting it and finding it helpful. There are plenty of reviews from people who did play the course that are no help at all.

 

[wolfhaley]

This shouldn't be a question. The answer is no. I don't care what weird exceptions might be out there. The answer is no. Play the course. Review if you'd like after.

This guy gets it.

perhaps a technical answer...

on DGCR you cannot review a course unless you have marked it as played. i wouldn't mark a course as played if i had only walked it. and i wouldn't consider such a review a legitimate one.

there is a really slippery slope here also. i could probably write a convincing review of a course i've never even been to if i read a bunch of other reviews, heard others discussing the course, maybe saw some pics or watched a little footage. particularly for generic courses like a typical park course or an elementary school course. that review might be accurate, helpful, and contain no falsehoods but it would still completely lack any integrity. if we were to accept reviewing a course that had only been walked then why not one you've only seen on video or in pictures or heard described in conversation.


then of course, there's my personal opinion that a good review is one that describes the experience of playing a course which i can't imagine being communicated effectively by someone who hasn't experienced it.

This guy does too. I'll elaborate a bit. Anyone can mark a course as played on the home page of said course. One click of a button. When reviewing a course on DGCR it asks that you only review a course before a certain amount of time has elapsed since playing it AND that you played at least half the course or something like that. Maybe the majority of the holes, not sure of the wording.

As to the OP's point. I watched the final round of World's at Lake Eureka temp a few years ago. We followed lead card from hole 1 through hole 18. I watched 4 of the best in the world throw shots for the entire final round. I watched the majority of it standing in OB and obstructed by a wall of other people to both sides.

Bottom line is if you want to review a course, play the damn course. Or else just enjoy your picnic. Walking a course isn't playing a course. I score my rounds on the DGCR app which marks that course as played when submitted. I have to enter in my number of throws on each hole. If I just walk it, I didn't throw. Pretty cut and dry imo.

 

[wolfhaley]

If it was informative and well thought out I'd have no problem accepting it and finding it helpful. There are plenty of reviews from people who did play the course that are no help at all.

So why wasn't my review of Echo Valley helpful? I played it, you were there opcorn:

 

[Hampstead]

So why wasn't my review of Echo Valley helpful? I played it, you were there opcorn:

I only read reviews of a course if I'm looking to play it for the first time. If I've already been there, other opinions don't really concern me. Even if I have no idea where I'm going and skip holes and act like I haven't been there before.

 

[biscoe]

More devil's advocacy as I neither write reviews nor do I have any actual problem with the methodology on this site:
What specifically makes playing the course superior to walking it and paying attention as you do so in terms of being able to review it sensibly? Analogies are nice and all but they don't really address the issue in more than a superficial sense. In some ways I think I would write a more well rounded review without worrying about my often crappy shots. You may see a few details on a course while playing that you would not have seen otherwise but imo you are just as likely to miss something semi-important because you are over in the schule not playing the actual fairway. YMMV.