Glaring omission in the top 10

[vslaugh]

Fair enough, but how do you know what tees are best before playing? What if the tees are not clearly marked for skill level? What if the best tees for me (or any given player) is a mix of longs and shorts?

What if it is the basket locations that change it to different skill levels rather than the tees? There is a course here whose setup always alternates basket placement either ShortLongSL.... or LongShortLS.... except for tournaments where it is all long.

Then I got nothing. I played Patapsco in Maryland which I think is a good course, but it has that same short-long thing going on and I got confused.

That's why I really really like the PDGA color-coded system. Fortunately, all the good courses in my area (Pittsburgh) use it. For the most part, this means one basket whose location only changes slightly, and three color-coded tees that generally correspond to PDGA skill levels.

To me, playing against the course and being pumped up about about scoring well and ticked off about not is the fun of playing.

I agree! Hopefully, increased standardization with PDGA color codes will make it easier for travelling players to find that experience without any thinking. Come to Pittsburgh and you can choose between 950-rated blue tees and 1000-rated gold tees at Moraine or 975-rated blue tees and 925-rated white tees at Deer Lakes, and if you choose close enough of a skill level you shouldn't have a single tweener hole. As a 950ish-rated player, I love playing Deer Lakes' blue tees for exactly the thrill you described of playing against the course knowing that I can birdie and bogey every hole.

 

[Dave242]

Is there - or has there ever been - an official ranking put out by timg? The owner of highbridge told me that this site hasn't been there in three years to update their review for the official rankings. I couldn't figure out what he was referring to. I was thinking it would be cool to put out an official ranking where all the elite courses are judged only by players who have played most/all of them. I couldn't contribute to that ranking by I know many top pros could.

What you see on the front page is the official ranking. timg creates the list and posts it annually as it is interesting how it changes from year to year.
2011 Thread
2010 Thread
2009
2008 Thread

I assume this is what you are talking about.

 

[chris deitzel]

Maple Hill, The Blockhouse, and Paw Paw are my 3 favorite courses to travel to. I would say that Maple Hill during VO time is probably the best course that I have ever played. I can remember every detail of every hole on that course. LOVED IT.

 

[Dave242]

Then I got nothing. I played Patapsco in Maryland which I think is a good course, but it has that same short-long thing going on and I got confused.

That's why I really really like the PDGA color-coded system. Fortunately, all the good courses in my area (Pittsburgh) use it. For the most part, this means one basket whose location only changes slightly, and three color-coded tees that generally correspond to PDGA skill levels.
.......
I agree! Hopefully, increased standardization with PDGA color codes will make it easier for travelling players to find that experience without any thinking.

Patapsco is a great example. I dinged it since most of the longs are too much for me....but there are so many layout scenarios that all longs was the only clear/fair way to rate it.

I 100% agree with you on standardizing skill levels (and designing entire courses to a specific skill level) and I beat that drum constantly here.

Pittsburgh is very high on my list of destinations (as is eastern PA). I have a sister down in Uniontown (and my wife's best friend lives in Pittsburgh) so I have a little tie in to the area and a potential excuse to get out there eventually. The only course I played so far is Schenley since it was close to where we were (I rated it much higher than many since it fit my game so perfectly).

 

[Dave242]

I was thinking it would be cool to put out an official ranking where all the elite courses are judged only by players who have played most/all of them. I couldn't contribute to that ranking by I know many top pros could.

Interesting idea! I would love to see it. How would you compile it though? Some sponsored players' sites list their top courses. But that is not nearly enough data to be useful.

I can guarantee that the top Pro's (even just the 975+ rated players) list would look vastly different than DGCR's list. It is different audience and "good/better/best" means something very different to them than to the average DGCR reviewer.

 

[prerube]

Patapsco is a great example. I dinged it since most of the longs are too much for me....but there are so many layout scenarios that all longs was the only clear/fair way to rate it.

I 100% agree with you on standardizing skill levels (and designing entire courses to a specific skill level) and I beat that drum constantly here.

Pittsburgh is very high on my list of destinations (as is eastern PA). I have a sister down in Uniontown (and my wife's best friend lives in Pittsburgh) so I have a little tie in to the area and a potential excuse to get out there eventually. The only course I played so far is Schenley since it was close to where we were (I rated it much higher than many since it fit my game so perfectly).

Dinging a course because you can not throw far is LAME. It is not the course's fault you can not throw 400ft.

 

[Dave242]

My throwing may indeed be lame, but there is no doubt that your thinking is. At least I could fix my problem if I wanted to.

What if I could throw 450 and the holes were 500? What about 600 and 700? Where does it end?

There is nothing wrong with understanding when someone is past the steep part of their learning curve and accepting that.

 

[prerube]

My throwing may indeed be lame, but there is no doubt that your thinking is. At least I could fix my problem if I wanted to.

What if I could throw 450 and the holes were 500? What about 600 and 700? Where does it end?

There is nothing wrong with understanding when someone is past the steep part of their learning curve and accepting that.

I fixed my problem, Have you seen the Domination video? I am shooting rounds a full 100 points higher than when I had a backwards X Step.
But my point is I NEVER blame the course for my flaws. Should no courses be challenging?

 

[BraveThrower43]

He was refering to your thinking being the problem. Not your bad form

 

[prerube]

My thinking is logical. A 5 star course should not get rated a 3 because it was too hard for Dave242. He is often the lowest rater of numerous great courses because they kicked his a$$.

 

[BraveThrower43]

He rates based on enjoyment(says it in his reviews). Folks dont always enjoy butt kickings

 

[biscoe]

Do you know of one that belongs in the top 10?

i do.

 

[MrHighlandPark]

He rates based on enjoyment(says it in his reviews). Folks dont always enjoy butt kickings

Folks who don't enjoy butt kickings should play the well designed and well labeled white layout. Maple Hill would currently be in the top 10 if Dave 242 had chosen to play the white layout on that ill fated day, and this thread would not exist.

 

[prerube]

Dave242 tied the lowest rating for flyboy because there was too much distance, he gave the same rating to dinky 9 holer in Virginia. He gave his 3 disc rated 9 holer and 21 other courses a higher rating than Flip City, Flyboy, Maple Hill and Idlewild.

So are we saying more courses should be more like these tiny 9 holers with sub-300 foot holes or beautiful disc golf destinations?

 

[BraveThrower43]

It doesn't matter because its a rating based on opinion

 

[prerube]

the rating should be based on design elements, not skill of the reviewer.
He would give Nevin a 0.

Mint Hill is barely average, there is not even 18 baskets. There is no way it is better than these top notch courses. Maybe he needs to stop keeping score when he plays if his performance hurts the rating of the course so much.

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

It doesn't matter because its a rating based on opinion

Unless you use an objective rating system...

 

[Dave242]

My thinking is logical. A 5 star course should not get rated a 3 because it was too hard for Dave242. He is often the lowest rater of numerous great courses because they kicked his a$$.

No, your thinking is not logical.

The issue is almost always that it is not a fair match-up in me versus the course. In the case of Maple Hill, yes it is too long for me (for the most part in the longest configuration) to get anything by routine pars as a result of great play on my part.....lots of tweener holes for me. In the case of Flip City, it is not a fair match up since it is too easy for the most part....so, there are lots of "so what?" birdies.

Either way, there is little exhilaration offered to me by the course to reward me when I play well.....and that makes the course less "good".

The only logical thing to do is to rate the course for yourself (or at least be very clear who exactly you are rating it for).....not for how you think others will like it. If this was not logical, almost all elementary school courses would be rated over 4.0 since they are really good courses (never mind that they are only good for elementary students).

Thanks for defending logic and reason, Brave. Alas, some people just like to try to pick fights on the same topic using flawed thinking.

 

[mashnut]

My thinking is logical. A 5 star course should not get rated a 3 because it was too hard for Dave242. He is often the lowest rater of numerous great courses because they kicked his a$$.

So we should all just rate based on what everyone else thinks rather than making our own decisions and adding our own opinions to the mix? I don't always agree with Dave's ratings, but I don't go ripping on him in the forums because of it. If someone doesn't value the same things you do in a course, don't read their reviews, read the ones that come from reviewers with a similar viewpoint to yours.

 

[prerube]

But Maple hill offered you multiple layouts, you chose to get your butt kicked.
Maybe rate the course more objectively. look at terrain, quality of baskets, pin positions, type of pads, ect. I know you are a fan of rubrics, so use them to fairly rate courses.