Great Experience vs. Great Golf

[denny ritner]

DGCR is an open site allowing for reviewers with a whole range of experience levels and aesthetic preferences to post. I think that this site is a phenomenal resource for traveling disc golfers and those that need a little break to feed the disc golf jones while at work.

What makes any particular course a great experience and/or a great disc golf course is a subjective matter. Reviewers will evaluate courses based upon aesthetics, amenities, flow, navigation, safety, tee pads, baskets, technical challenge, power requirements, strategic elements, etc. and prioritize these factors individually. No two reviewers will have the exact same "formula" for writing a review.

Personally, I make no bones about the fact that I prioritize reviews in terms of safety, flow, advanced level challenge, and appeal to a broad spectrum of player abilities in that order. I greatly value aesthetics and amenities, but will always give a great challenging disc golf course with par 4's and 5's a higher ranking than a beautiful, fun, all par 3's intermediate level course. That's my way and it's great that other reviewers have their way. Readers can discern reviewer perspectives and use that information accordingly.

Having said all that, I'm interested to hear some thoughts on the following review. Yes, it's awesome to provide another fun course on a beautiful venue with great amenities and hospitality, but IMO it does not make it a great disc golf course. Based on dirt tees, lower quality baskets, short distances, and the lack of par 4's and 5's, the highest rating I'd give this course is a 3-3.5. Take a look at any list of the top 100 ball golf courses and see how many are intermediate level pitch and putt courses - NONE. Of course, I'm sure that I'd have a great "disc golf experience" playing this course (as well as Phantom and Beaver for that matter).

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=5503&mode=rev#42704

Pros: YES - I AM BIASED - I am one of the 2 designers?? We have put together with out a doubt, one of the best intermediate DG courses in the world. Shot variety is 2nd to none, distance is med with lots of risk and reward. The pin placements are also 2nd to none, signage/navagation is again 2nd to none, and the property is also 2nd 2 none.

This is one amazing DG course. We have a pro-shop/club house, a lounge, snack/lunch bar, driving range, and a 9 hole putt-putt course. We are working on the beginner course (mellow meadows) now, and hope to have the advanced course (mammoth meadows) in by July of next year. This is the future of DG and we have the vision. The future of our sport is kids, women, and beginners. Many of the NEW courses going in seem to be catering to the pro's and are NOT going to grow our sport, there are less than 10% of all DG players that can play an 800' par-5 well.

It is the well designed beginner and intermediate courses that are going to grow our sport. Plese don't let "them" brain wash you, a DG course does not "suck" BC it does not have long and hard holes that 90% of DG'ers can not play well. A DG course DOES NOT have to "kick your ass" to be good!!!!!!!. A DG course is a good course if you have a ton of FUN playing it, it has mucho fun factor, and mucho amenties incluning, benches/chairs & trash cans at every hole, pro-shop, "facilities", driving range, putt-putt course, a lounge, lunch/snack options, etc . This course has it ALL!!!

Cons: Neighbors - Haters gunna hate??

Other Thoughts: A DG course DOES NOT have to be insanely long or hard to be good!!!
Come check out the future of DG - The pilots of the revolution - Paulie & Rudy

 

[New013]

I don't have a problem with the designer giving an inflated rating as long as they always state in the review that they are the designer.

Most of the people who have reviewed that course have reviewed 5 or less courses, a lot of them have only one review which is that course. Not a single trusted reviewer has reviewed the course yet. I think time and more reviews will sort it out.

 

[Brall]

I am one of the 2 designers??

he seems unsure if he was a designer

 

[InnocentCrook]

Seems like more rant than review.

 

[Brall]

time to round up some diamond level reviewers and send them in. where you at Olorin, mashnut, GoodDriveBadPutt, harr and ummm, can't remember any others... brain overload

either way, course looks d*** nice from the pics.

 

[mashnut]

I think there's a place for different priorities in our review system. As long as a reviewer makes it clear what criteria are important to him or her and how they arrived at their rating then I can evaluate how meaningful that rating is to me personally. I happen to mostly agree with you Denny, I very much prefer challenge and variety to amenities and atmosphere but it's fine with me if that's not how everyone looks at it.

 

[denny ritner]

Just to clarify: I'm not suggesting that Paulie shouldn't review the way he reviews. He states upfront that he's the designer. This is only to facilitate a discussion about how other people view priorities in design and reviews. I also appreciate Paulie's vision, pasion, and hard work and think that his courses are an important part of the array of choices available to disc golfers.

 

[chrishysell]

Reviews just make me angry so I had to quit reading them. Reviewers often complain about the bugs on a course or anything that really has nothing to do with design. It's like hating a movie because the popcorn was stale or the soda was flat.

 

[New013]

i don't see a problem with people mentioning if bugs are especially bad at a course, let's people know to bring bug spray. i don't think it should affect the score though, there's a lot of things i'll mention that don't affect my score like facilities, benches, traschans..

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here's a con from a review that doesn't make much sense:

Cons: Nobody out there playing! I played 3 times last week on a road-trip, and only saw two other groups playing.

 

[notapro]

I don't like that I read that review... And learned next to nothing about the course. It's med length, has pin positions 2nd 2 none, and shot voriety 2nd 2 none. Super.

Then the rest of it is a (presumably) drunken rant about disc golf in general and possible future courses on site. Yikes.

That review is 2nd 2 none for being a self-serving rant. If what it says is true though, sounds like a good time!

To the OP,

I enjoy difficulty as well, but a course of all par 3's can be just as difficult as one with par 4's and 5's, so the length doesn't really dictate diffiulty to me. In general. That course looks pretty darn short, though. At 230' average per hole, I don't think you can even call it med length.

 

[prerube]

I don't have a problem with the designer giving an inflated rating as long as they always state in the review that they are the designer.

Most of the people who have reviewed that course have reviewed 5 or less courses, a lot of them have only one review which is that course. Not a single trusted reviewer has reviewed the course yet. I think time and more reviews will sort it out.

I did it I gave my .5 disc course a 1.5

ConnorJones once said flyboy may not be the best disc golf course, but it is the best disc golf experience. I feel somewhat similarly about the Blockhouse, the experience gives the rating a little boost.

the top 3 things I personaly look for are:
#1 SAFETY. If their are safety issues I will document them and even say to what extent they are dangerous.
#2 Navigation. This should not be such a priority because you know wher to go if you are a local, but if frustrates the hell out of me when I spend 3 hours playing, but an hour and twenty minutes is devoted to finding the next tees.
#3 Shot variety and noteworthy holes good or bad.

 

[onemilemore]

See, I am not sure how I feel about a designer rating his or her own course. Having designed a small pitch and putt myself, it is an extremely time-consuming, emotional, personal process. All of the time and sweat put in certainly plays a huge role in your review. Even if you state that you are the designer, you are being nowhere near objective. It would be like Christopher Nolan reviewing the Batman films. What's he going to say? "Oh, this could have been better?"

 

[prerube]

I did not like designers rating their own as well, but it is a way to disperse vital information with out starting a thread about the course. I tried to stick with my usual rubric and make sure it compared to other courses with the same rating, yet I still showed clear bias.

 

[DavidSauls]

The subject review could use a dash of humility. And a thesaurus for "2nd 2 none".

On the actual topic, and the notion that an intermediate-level course could be highly rated, I have no problem. A course doesn't have to be super-challenging to be great; it just has to excel in other facets to compensate.

The photos of the reviewed course are quite interesting.

 

[Brall]

I did it I gave my .5 disc course a 1.5

sinner